Huh? What? So does this mean that the next time someone is killed by someone using an HK (a la Wick), families will sue HK? That free speech (mktg) is now complicit in someone’s decision to kill someone? That one’s actions are not one’s own but compelled in mktg messages?

I thought there have been studies and data that showed video games don’t result in violence? Are the game makers being sued now as well? Since they are part of this so called recipe?

Can someone now sue Nike for pain and suffering and injury for telling them to “just do it” and now have bad knees from all the jogging while using Nike shoes?

What precedent is this now setting where people arrant fully accountable for their own actions?

I think the bottom line is that Remington caved, for whatever reason. That's on Remington. However, it also means that there is no precedent for the gun grabbers if this comes up again somewhere else.

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:
I think the bottom line is that Remington caved, for whatever reason. That's on Remington. However, it also means that there is no precedent for the gun grabbers if this comes up again somewhere else.

READ THE ARTICLE FOLKS!!!!!

Remington did not cave THEIR INSURERS DID. Remington truly lost when they went bankrupt.

quote:

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

Came to say this, too. ^^^^^

The INSURANCE settled and is paying the bill. As for Remington, it's not it's own standalone company at that time, it was owned by a shell who had others under it's management and who didn't do a real good job of it, hence the sell off of most of their holdings.

Remington has taken a lot of internal abuse, lack of capital management, a state who's attempting to legislate them out of business, a plant in Huntsville that was "too big to fail," etc.

As Fed Law requires the insurance yet on the other hand regulates the liability, it seems that at a certain point - as usual - it was cheaper to pay than litigate for an appropriate legal solution. Said insurance companies just roll back the expense and then actuarially justify their risks to charge even more. Now manufacturer insurance will be higher and we will see more pressure to raise prices.

We get pretty good at determining what a part or firearm should cost, but the mandated overhead of insurance etc in America is where the less well known factors inflate prices.

A comment on a parent who allowed access to a firearm for a diagnosed mentally unstable family member: It was discussed in the day, have we learned what went wrong there and how we should apply it? Any family member residing in the house who is under treatment for drug addiction or mental instability should require better security of firearms, and preventing uncontrolled access, especially in a household with no adult male.

A perfect storm and win for those attempting to reconstruct America.

Preposterous. Theoretically this should open the door to wrongful death suits against car companies, alcohol producers, and of all things, creators of, say, fake vaccines that involved halted trials to test for safety and outright lies about efficacy. But these institutions are not under attack by global leftists. They want our guns and if that means attacking the industry and our rights at every level, that is what they will do.

Someone that willfully plows a car into a crowd is held accountable, but scary gun makers are to blame when a psycho does the equivalent with a firearm. This is all part of a bigger plan to try and turn us into another Australia, Canada, England, etc. I don’t believe it will happen the way they hope.

First, the Supreme Court of the United States rarely takes cases that are in a preliminary state.

Second, there are issues of state law vs. federal law. SCOTUS I'm sure wasn't going to get involved until the issues were litigated to the end in every court involved to make sure the picture was complete.

Third, like others have said, there is third party liability in lots of cases (servers and tavern owners in bars overserving and not stopping obviously drunk drivers for example) in many states. It's complicated to figure out even for those with a law degree.

Fourth, as also said, Remington did nothing. The insurers resolved the case.

quote:

Originally posted by shovelhead:
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.

Those are the criminal charges, nothing to do with the civil action which is what Remington's Insurers are paying out on.

Wait, the civil cases will start soon

quote:

Originally posted by sgalczyn:
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.”

The case got around the firearms manufacturers' immunity by attacking the way Remington advertised the product - who they pitched it to, and how. If you look at the ad campaign, it was reasonably predictable that litigation would result if the product was misused, and what the result would be.

The people at Remington were stupid to use the ad campaign that they did. That's the lesson this case teaches.

Is there a link somewhere to the add that caused this? I sure would like to see it.

Ads don’t compel one’s behavior and actions. They only encourage a purchase.

The dude was already prone to violence. The ad didn’t make him so.

Whatever the ad says, the actions were the dude’s alone.

quote:

how the rifle was marketed

I must have missed the "just the rifle for your dopey kid to steal and murder children with" ads they were running.

quote:

A comment on a parent who allowed access to a firearm for a diagnosed mentally unstable family member: It was discussed in the day, have we learned what went wrong there and how we should apply it? Any family member residing in the house who is under treatment for drug addiction or mental instability should require better security of firearms, and preventing uncontrolled access, especially in a household with no adult male.

Allowed? As I remember the incident, the guy beat his mother's head in, killing her, then broke into the safe to get the gun. Nobody allowed jack shit.

The news media is more guilty here than any Remington ad, he just did what he thought he was supposed to do. It's what you do. They helped make this kind of behavior "the new norm" as they like to say.

Someone in the conservative media pointed out the hypocrisy of holding the MI parents responsible for the son's behavior, while NOT holding the parents of all those gang kids shooting up the cities responsible for their kids' behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by shovelhead:
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.

Those are the criminal charges, nothing to do with the civil action which is what Remington's Insurers are paying out on.

Wait, the civil cases will start soon

Too late,the civil cases have already commenced. Geoffrey Fieger filed two 100 million dollar lawsuits around December 7-8.

Someone let the Genie out of the bottle. The Auto industry should be very scared as well.
We are a very litigious society.

Civil is a different court and the results can be, too.

A certain athlete was accused and found innocent of killing his girlfriend and another man. A civil case later awarded complainants $33 million, most of which has not been paid.

Subsequently, the athlete was attempting to recover personal property being sold off and found guilty of crimes, sentenced, and he served those penalties.

Remingtons insurers are the ones who managed this trial, not the company itself, and that is who was named in the suit. If the insurance company rolls over and pays, it's likely the least expensive method to settle in their assessment of the overall risk. They have no dog in the fight over "guilt" or placing blame. Their only concern is protecting their profits from the investment of the the fees paid by their industrial clients.

If the industry is noted become higher risk, higher fees are charged. That rolls back into overhead, the product is marked up to cover it, and for all that, the maker doesn't see their profits decline over it, either.

You and I, however, do see our discretionary funds getting hit for increased costs. If guns go up, we spend less on them.

Win win for the gun control crowd, they think. However, we continue to procreate, more customers are brought into the market, and they sometimes wake up to the shenanigans. The last two years saw an increase of 16 million gun owners, all new to the market - as if we haven't noticed the bare shelves.

So far gun control doesn't seem to be gaining any ground at all, and over the last 25 years is losing ground on issues like CCW - over 40 states now have it and about half are open carry legal, too. That is a MAJOR shift in my lifetime.

Im not to worried over one suit.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Someone let the Genie out of the bottle. The Auto industry should be very scared as well.
We are a very litigious society.

Sure we are . Who doesn't like free money ?

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

how the rifle was marketed

I must have missed the "just the rifle for your dopey kid to steal and murder children with" ads they were running.

Don't have a link but I did read that the decision was almost entirely based on how the weapon was marketed. Apparently, for example, they ran one ad that had a picture of the weapon with some phrase about getting your "man card" if you buy one. I'm sure that other manufacturers will look at the decision and adjust their marketing accordingly.

I'm not an attorney, however I wonder if adding to every gun ad a box outlining the rules of gun safety (like alcohol ads always having "Drink Responsibly" and cigarette packs with the Surgeon General's Warning) would resolve the question about firearms marketing?