Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There would seem to be a reasonable point around the marketing materials but then a huge stretch that turning such a gun on gradeschoolers corresponding to such marketing materials lead to the shootings.
In short, it squeeked through a left-wing packed court and is using a pretty big stretch to try to end-around legislation.
This is a violation of the courts authority but oh well, the SCOTUS will eventually slap em' down for this if it ever gets that far.
It doesn't work that way. If you marketed a drug off-label and 20 people died due to that off-label use or similar, the value is the loss, not the cost!
Surely you know this?
My friend had a situation where a company that made "duct hanger" - small strips of metal that cost about a buck, pay millions of dollars...and, it was for a product that wasn't defective.
Why didn't the judge just order them to give a replacement box of hangars after the place burned down?
Using your "rules", if I illegally shoot a bullet and cause 2 million dollar worth of medical issues, I should pay 4X the cost of the bullet, right?
Are you trying to equate an ILLEGAL act with a legal act of manufacturing and marketing a firearm? Really?
Some comments on here are so "out there" they leave me speechless.
But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
It doesn't work that way. If you marketed a drug off-label and 20 people died due to that off-label use or similar, the value is the loss, not the cost!
Surely you know this?
I do, however we're not talking about product liability for how it was used, we're talking about a narrow view of marketing. This isnt about people being killed-this is about your marketing being illegal. They are protected from lawsuits from deaths, they arent protected from marketing that is illegal.
Quote:
My friend had a situation where a company that made "duct hanger" - small strips of metal that cost about a buck, pay millions of dollars...and, it was for a product that wasn't defective.
Why didn't the judge just order them to give a replacement box of hangars after the place burned down?
Using your "rules", if I illegally shoot a bullet and cause 2 million dollar worth of medical issues, I should pay 4X the cost of the bullet, right?
Your argument is not the same. I cant sue the maker of the bullet if you shoot someone, but I can sue you. Under your argument if someone kidnapped another human being, then suffocated them with a garbage bag, I could sue the garbage bag maker. Which is utter nonsense. Come back with a real argument and a non apple to banana comparison.
I love these threads. LOL. A ton of people right now are going "wait....im on the same side as Greywar? Nooooooooo..."
Sure, they can sue the gun manufacturer.
They best hope and pray they get a jury that thinks just as they do.
For sure, they would not want me on their jury. I would be likely to award them each one dollar, with nothing for the lawyers.
Now, if that sick fool's mother had given him the weapon, or if he had bought it directly from Remington, MAYBE I would be sympathetic to their lawsuit. Considering the fact that he killed his mother and stole the weapon, I don't see where Remington had/has any responsibility for his actions at all!
If the plaintiffs win this suit, I would venture to say that the manufacturers/sellers of ATVs, UTVs, snowmobiles, and all other machines had better take a look at how they portray their machines in advertising. All the extreme speed, scattering dirt and forest duff all over the place, making jumps, etc. will have to stop. They can't portray actions like that, somebody will think such operations are a good idea.
Until they get killed...
Then their family can sue!
Okay BUT what gun manufacturer is marketing their guns to the general public as tools that will kill people?
There are companies that make guns, tanks, land mines and other things that are marketed to military buyers but these are not available to civilians.
We all know that driving a car and alcohol does not mix just as we all know that handing a dangerous weapon like a gun to a deranged person intent on murder will not end well. Everyday we have drunks driving on the roads killing themselves and others but we don't ban booze or cars and we don't allow car manufacturers to be sued for these accidents UNLESS the car has a defect. The rifles do not have defects but they can be used as deadly weapons just as cars can be..?
If I get hit by a car I will sue the manufacturer since if that car wasn’t built, I wouldn’t be hit.
I'm thinking of suing the knife manufacturer because their knife I used last night to cut the tomato sliced my finger when I used it...that SOB knife company!
So it's more about suing the company for how it marketed its product -- not about it producing the product.
Gun manufacturers can't be sued for the product itself unless it was defective etc. It's pointless exercise and the law was implemented to prevent frivolous lawsuits. e.g. you wouldn't sue the car company if someone purposely ran some over with it.
Personally I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere, the examples of ads I have seen simply proclaim it's effectiveness.
Are there any other large consumer items that are not subject to liability laws?
How many companies were being sued because their product was doing exactly what it was intended to do? Someone can use a gun for hunting or someone can use it to kill someone. Someone can use a car to drive to work or they can drive it down a sidewalk killing numerous people. The lawsuit against the car company is going no where and if whole bunch of lawsuits started appearing you could expect legislation stopping it.
They are not exempt from normal liabilities like a defective product, only defective people.
Firearms manufacturers are NOT exempt from liability as you claim. They ARE exempt from someone deciding to use their product in an illegal manner. Just as Ford would be exempt from liability if I drove a Ford Excursion into a crowd with the intent of killing people.
But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
It's a valid point - not really an opinion, but a factoid.
As you well know, if said Ford could have easily had pedestrian avoidance built into it (which will very soon be standard), then - YES - Ford could be sued for the deaths or the excess deaths resulting from same.
So add my factoid to your and we can see that manufacturers, as in every industry, have a strict obligation to make certain that the product they sell is not abused.
I assume neither of us are legislators, but my assumption is that the future will hold gun makers and sellers much more responsible. It will only take a single victory or a couple mid-level wins to change the outlook.
Do you think Boeing may get held responsible for marketing the Max as needing no simulator and almost no additional pilot training?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
