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.
"HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes."
The law suit is attacking how Remington marketed the gun to younger people but when you think about it how many video games feature the so called assault weapons like the AR15 mowing down people?
I just don't see how they can find a company at fault when their product causes harm to others, not out of a default but by the purchaser using the product in a unsafe or unlawful manner.
I guess this means that if I buy a gallon of gas, take it home, dump it onto a pile of leave and toss a match into it I can then sue the gas station as well as the company that owns the refinery for the burns I suffer?
What if I go to Home Depot, buy a table saw and then cut my arm off? It sounds like I can now sue HD, and Dewalt for producing and selling a dangerous product while marketing it to everyone without a waiting period, without a need for permits or a background check...
This ruling is not going to bode well for other companies such as car manufacturers that feature their cars skidding sideways through city streets and portraying a law breaking attitude to boost excitement to young buyers. Yes there is a fine print disclaimer "Do not attempt" "closed course" etc etc... but who pays attention to that? I want to drifting through a city like they do on TV!
Is this court ruling over reach? Is it targeted at the Remington because of a political agenda?
"HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes."
The law suit is attacking how Remington marketed the gun to younger people but when you think about it how many video games feature the so called assault weapons like the AR15 mowing down people?
I just don't see how they can find a company at fault when their product causes harm to others, not out of a default but by the purchaser using the product in a unsafe or unlawful manner.
I guess this means that if I buy a gallon of gas, take it home, dump it onto a pile of leave and toss a match into it I can then sue the gas station as well as the company that owns the refinery for the burns I suffer?
What if I go to Home Depot, buy a table saw and then cut my arm off? It sounds like I can now sue HD, and Dewalt for producing and selling a dangerous product while marketing it to everyone without a waiting period, without a need for permits or a background check...
This ruling is not going to bode well for other companies such as car manufacturers that feature their cars skidding sideways through city streets and portraying a law breaking attitude to boost excitement to young buyers. Yes there is a fine print disclaimer "Do not attempt" "closed course" etc etc... but who pays attention to that? I want to drifting through a city like they do on TV!
Is this court ruling over reach? Is it targeted at the Remington because of a political agenda?
No it doesn't mean you can enact your examples and then sue. Nice try at whatever you are attempting but no cigar.
Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled the suit could go forward under that state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a statute aimed at harmful marketing, in this case marketing not of the weapon itself but the use of the weapon as a potential tool for “offensive military style combat” by civilians, which is illegal.
This is like suing a car company if a drunk person crashes into you.
Not exactly. It's like suing a car company if they market their car based on the premise of drinking and driving going well together, then a drunk who is driving that style of car hits you.
Which is why, btw, there is no booze in car commercials.
Cue "The More You Know"
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
This is like suing a car company if a drunk person crashes into you.
I agree and it is what I'm saying in my post.
We have so many products out there that are advertised in such a way to promote excitement among potential buyers such as car ads that show their products breaking the law by speeding and skidding around public roads.
I think this ruling is a political one that aims to destroy Remington because they are a major manufacturer of a product that the Anti Gun Left hates.
Not exactly. It's like suing a car company if they market their car based on the premise of drinking and driving going well together, then a drunk who is driving that style of car hits you.
Which is why, btw, there is no booze in car commercials.
Cue "The More You Know"
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..?
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..?
They market them as home security and let's be honest... most people (unlike Betsy DeVos) are securing their homes from... OTHER PEOPLE... not from grizzly bears.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Absurd interpretation. Did you read the article or are you just relying on the OP's preposterous rendition?
Why is it preposterous? Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine how other companies could be sued and a court find for the plaintiff if their products are misused or their advertising is misconstrued?
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.
