Did a search without results - so posting here. Apologies for the source but APnews seemed to be the least Left-rag to reference. So can I go after Ford and Smirnoff when some tragedy befalls me?

https://apnews.com/article/san...9b838afc06275a4df403

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting announced Tuesday they have agreed to a $73 million settlement of a lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 20 first graders and six educators in 2012.

The case was watched closely by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters and manufacturers, because of its potential to provide a roadmap for victims of other shootings to sue firearm makers.

The families and a survivor of the shooting sued Remington in 2015, saying the company should have never sold such a dangerous weapon to the public. They said their focus was on preventing future mass shootings by forcing gun companies to be more responsible with their products and how they market them.

At a news conference, some of the parents behind the lawsuit described a bittersweet victory.

“Nothing will bring Dylan back,” said Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the shooting. “My hope for this lawsuit,” she said, “is that by facing and finally being penalized for the impact of their work, gun companies along with the insurance and banking industries that enable them will be forced to make their practices safer than they’ve ever been, which will save lives and stop more shootings.”

Gun rights groups said the settlement will have little effect on rifle sales and gun makers, who continue to be shielded from liability in most cases under federal law. But some experts said it may prompt insurers to pressure gun makers into making some changes.

“We might expect to see increased pressure from insurance companies for gun manufacturers to avoid the kind of either design choices or marketing practices that gave rise to this litigation,” said Timothy D. Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University.

The settlement is not the first between victims and a gun manufacturer. Families of eight victims of the Washington, D.C.-area snipers won a $2.5 million settlement in 2004, with $550,000 coming from Bushmaster Firearms Inc. and the rest from the gun dealer. But Lytton said the impact of the Sandy Hook settlement could be greater because it is so much higher.

The civil court case in Connecticut focused on how the firearm used by the Newtown shooter — a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle — was marketed, alleging it targeted younger, at-risk males in advertising and product placement in violent video games. In one of Remington’s ads, it features the rifle against a plain backdrop and the phrase: “Consider Your Man Card Reissued.”

As part of the settlement, Remington also agreed to allow the families to release numerous documents they obtained during the lawsuit including ones showing how it marketed the weapon, the families said. It’s not clear when those documents will be released.

Remington had argued there was no evidence to establish that its marketing had anything to do with the shooting.

The company also had said the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of the federal law that gives broad immunity to the gun industry. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle, under an exception to the federal law. The gun maker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

Whether similar lawsuits can proceed against gun makers remains unsettled because the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the exception to the 2005 immunity law used by the Sandy Hook families, Lytton said.

Remington, one of the nation’s oldest gun makers founded in 1816, filed for bankruptcy for a second time in 2020 and its assets were later sold off to several companies. The manufacturer was weighed down by lawsuits and retail sales restrictions following the school shooting.

Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman in the Sandy Hook shooting, used the rifle made by Remington and legally owned by his mother to kill the children and educators on Dec. 14, 2012, after having killed his mother at their Newtown home. He then used a handgun to kill himself as police arrived.

Lanza’s severe and deteriorating mental health problems, his preoccupation with violence and access to his mother’s weapons “proved a recipe for mass murder,” according to Connecticut’s child advocate.

Messages seeking comment were left for Remington and its lawyers Tuesday.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a Newtown-based group that represents gunmakers, said courts should not have allowed the case to proceed and it believes the plaintiffs would have lost at trial. It also said the settlement should have no effect on the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the 2005 federal law that shielded gun makers from liability.

“The plaintiffs never produced any evidence that Bushmaster advertising had any bearing or influence over Nancy Lanza’s decision to legally purchase a Bushmaster rifle, nor on the decision of murderer Adam Lanza to steal that rifle, kill his mother in her sleep, and go on to commit the rest of his horrendous crimes,” the group said in a statement.

Damages from the settlement will be paid only to the families who signed onto the lawsuit, and not other victims’ families. The families have not decided yet what they will be doing with the money from the settlement, said their spokesperson, Andrew Friedman.

Four insurers for the now-bankrupt company agreed to pay the full amount of coverage available, totaling $73 million, the plaintiffs said.

“Today is about what is right and what is wrong,” said Francine Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son, Ben, was killed in the shooting. “Our legal system has given us some justice today. But ... David and I will never have true justice. True justice would be our 15-year-old healthy and standing next to us right now. But Benny will never be 15. He will be 6 forever because he is gone forever.”

It’s pretty crazy, that event directly put me on the path to joining the Navy.

Such a waste all around, from the mentally unstable kid, to the loss of life, to this pointless lawsuit.

I wonder if the 'broad immunity' that was in place under federal law to protect the Firearms Industry provides similar durability to that which protects the Pharmaceutical MFrs from liability...

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
I wonder if the 'broad immunity' that was in place under federal law to protect the Firearms Industry provides similar durability to that which protects the Pharmaceutical MFrs from liability...

I believe it was. Some judge decided screw the law and let the suit go through. Stupid Remington should not have settled. Although I am not sure how much the plaintiffs will get since Remington is bankrupt!

I think this says it all.

“The company also had said the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of the federal law that gives broad immunity to the gun industry. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle, under an exception to the federal law. The gun maker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.”

The state argued that the case could go forward under state law, and the SCOTUS declined to say otherwise.

I’m guessing Remington had enough internal problems it was in their best interest to settle. I don’t think a gun manufacturer with better resources would have rolled over so easily.

quote:

Some judge decided screw the law and let the suit go through. Stupid Remington should not have settled. Although I am not sure how much the plaintiffs will get since Remington is bankrupt!

They will get every penny.

quote:

Four insurers for the now-bankrupt company agreed to pay the full amount of coverage available, totaling $73 million, the plaintiffs said.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
I think this says it all.

“The company also had said the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of the federal law that gives broad immunity to the gun industry. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle, under an exception to the federal law. The gun maker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.”

The state argued that the case could go forward under state law, and the SCOTUS declined to say otherwise.

I wonder if this can also be applied to vehicle manufactures and drunk drivers who kill/murder someone while driving drunk?

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
I think this says it all.

“The company also had said the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of the federal law that gives broad immunity to the gun industry. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle, under an exception to the federal law. The gun maker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.”

The state argued that the case could go forward under state law, and the SCOTUS declined to say otherwise.

I wonder if this can also be applied to vehicle manufactures and drunk drivers who kill/murder someone while driving drunk?

Or the bar that served them. Or Budweiser.

Hell, why stop there? I say go after the grandmother of the bartender that served them.

Why would the Supreme Court refuse to hear this case? It is in direct violation of federal law, and applies liability to the manufacturer for the deliberate actions of a criminal even though the functioning of the rifle was 100% normal.

Declining is not a ruling so it gives them a chance to decide later, but really, this is just an appeal to sympathy for the grieving parents because someone with money has to be responsible.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Why would the Supreme Court refuse to hear this case?

They're cowards.

I thought we already had a thread about this?

Anyway, it is a win for the gun community. These parents took the payout rather than their 'claimed' attempts at reforming the evil that is black rifles.
So much for their heroic stand for justice and change. I truly hate what happened to them but they jumped on the bandwagon to effect change but then took the payout.

From the lawsuit against the Lanza estate which mainly consisted of a payout by his mother’s insurer:the lawsuit alleges that Mrs. Lanza "made her weapons readily available to Adama Lanza, and had even provided funds to purchase a handgun for the upcoming Christmas Holiday, despite knowing Adam Lanza did not have a concealed carry permit issued through the state of Connecticut."

Mrs. Lanza also took her son "to the nearby shooting range to fire her weapons on a regular basis in the months leading up to December 14, 2012," the complaint states.

Adam Lanza had unrestricted access to the dangerous weapons that his mother owned, which she "failed to properly store or secure such weapons or ammunition," the lawsuit states.

"Adam Lanza's access to the Bushmaster, other weapons, and ammunition was a substantial factor leading to the plaintiff's' decedent's injuries and losses," the complaint continues.

So in a nutshell the deep pockets syndrome is why Remington was brought into court. The lawsuit against the Lanza estate only brought 1.5 million to the table as Adam Lanza’s father was not included in that lawsuit, apparently all the blame was correctly put upon Adam and his mother.

As stated above-

https://www.chicagotribune.com...wgs3my4ka-story.html

In essence: Budweiser, Bacardi, Ford better be shaking in their boots!

This case opened a strange door to "who's responsible". Yeah, I've been around long enough to know its "who's got the deepest pockets".

Fuckin sad that Remmington settled.

quote:

Originally posted by shovelhead:
From the lawsuit against the Lanza estate which mainly consisted of a payout by his mother’s insurer:the lawsuit alleges that Mrs. Lanza "made her weapons readily available to Adama Lanza, and had even provided funds to purchase a handgun for the upcoming Christmas Holiday, despite knowing Adam Lanza did not have a concealed carry permit issued through the state of Connecticut."

Is there a law that says your firearms must be secured in some manner (remember the shooter was a grown man, not a minor)
Is there a rule or law against giving someone money to spend as they see fit

Mrs. Lanza also took her son "to the nearby shooting range to fire her weapons on a regular basis in the months leading up to December 14, 2012," the complaint states.
Is there some rule that says you can’t do that?

Adam Lanza had unrestricted access to the dangerous weapons that his mother owned, which she "failed to properly store or secure such weapons or ammunition," the lawsuit states.

Again, is there a law where the state says you have to secure firearms from other adults in your home

"Adam Lanza's access to the Bushmaster, other weapons, and ammunition was a substantial factor leading to the plaintiff's' decedent's injuries and losses," the complaint continues.

So if he couldn’t easily murder his mother and steal her firearms he wouldn’t have killed people

So in a nutshell the deep pockets syndrome is why Remington was brought into court. The lawsuit against the Lanza estate only brought 1.5 million to the table as Adam Lanza’s father was not included in that lawsuit, apparently all the blame was correctly put upon Adam and his mother.

Money. Money is what these people wanted

My grandmother was murdered…beaten to death with a hammer. Should I or the rest of my family sue the maker of the hammer, or the soda producer that the killer drank as he lay in wait before he killed her. Could we also have sued the guy who sold him crack that he smoked as he lay hidden…I’m just asking because these are things we should know….or should I sue her homeowners insurance because it happened at her residence…or maybe I could go for the deep pockets of the police because they didn’t catch him for the outstanding warrants he had before he killed her….

I know they have lost a loved one. So have I. But no amount of money will make it right. And taking money from the gun maker doesn’t address the murder and theft Lanza committed before his spree, or his mental issues.which is the root of the issue…not the gun maker.

This is ridicules. The person is accountable. Not the tool. Our judges, courts, and society in general has gone to shit. Where's that comet?

Charge the ones responsible for the action.

A situation like this is underway in Michigan at present.

Parents bought a handgun for their fifteen year old son. Son takes it to school and kills four students. They contend the gun was secured and not accessible to their son.

This time though the parents are being charged with involuntary manslaughter in the four deaths associated with their son’s actions while their son has four first degree murder charges, a terrorism charge, seven counts of assault with intent to murder and twelve felony firearm charges.

This is how it should be, change the people involved.

Shame on Supreme Court for refusing to hear it, and shame on Remington for caving. I understand the cost's involved in fighting but you can't appeal settling. It may well have been overturned, but Remington were probably deflated when USSC refused to look at it. Maybe the court needed an actual decision to be made by the lower court to act to overturn?

So can utensil manufacturers be gone after now for obesity and diabetes, vehicle manufacturers for DUI's, all sporting good equipment manufacturers for sports injuries, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
I wonder if this can also be applied to vehicle manufactures and drunk drivers who kill/murder someone while driving drunk?

Or the bar that served them.

As I understand the law: In Michigan, the bar that served a drunk driver can be sued, as well as can the individual server(s). If the plaintiff(s) can prove the bar and server(s) knew, or should have known, the drunk driver was or had been over-served: Game over.

When I served bar in a voluntary capacity at a couple private clubs to which I belonged: I was not in the least bit hesitant to cut patrons off.

(Had a patron give me push-back one time. I finally had to call the [paid] bar manager over. She told him "If he says you're cut off, you're cut off. Give us any more trouble and you're barred." Turned out he was a regular problem. [She further told me I'd done the right thing and had handled it well. Turned out she'd been watching to see how I'd handle him.])

One could argue the ethical legitimacy of making servers responsible, but certainly the makers of the alcoholic beverages are not. And that's what happened, here.

It's bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by redstone:
So much for their heroic stand for justice and change. I truly hate what happened to them but they jumped on the bandwagon to effect change but then took the payout.

Not that I think they give a flying frack, but those families instantly lost all my sympathy when they filed their lawsuit. Taking the payout merely confirms what I believed all along: They may be grieving, but the lawsuit was merely a money grab.

And how much of the settlement $$$ do the lawyers get? My takeaway on this is SCOTUS screwed Remington when they declined to hear the case. They chose to ignore established law and sat back and let this happen. The concept of any kind of fair treatment in our courts is as dead as the Dinosaurs.