testtest

Bad bad bad precedent: Remington settles lawsuit with families

it can only get worse, if the ammo companies get sued. if the gun cleaning and lube companies get sued, if the after market trigger companies get sued, and so on and so forth..

as anything with a "name attached" to the product will be liable.

look at the Station Night Club fire in my state.

over 100 people died.

any company that was a sponsor, or supplier to the event that night..??

got sued.

even a radio and tv station got sued...!!!!!

Civil settlements[edit]​

As of September 2008, at least $115 million in settlement agreements had been paid, or offered, to the victims or their families by various defendants:

  • In September 2008, The Jack Russell Tour Group Inc. offered $1 million in a settlement to survivors and victims' relatives,[20] the maximum allowed under the band's insurance plan.[21]
  • Club owners Jeffrey and Michael Derderian have offered to settle for $813,000,[22] which is to be covered by their insurance plan due to the pair having bankruptcy protection from lawsuits.[22]
  • The State of Rhode Island and the town of West Warwick agreed to pay $10 million as settlement.[23]
  • Sealed Air Corporation agreed to pay $25 million as settlement. Sealed Air made flammable packaging foam that was improperly installed in the club, which required acoustic foam designed for this purpose.[24]
  • In February 2008, Providence television station WPRI-TV and their then-owners LIN TV made an out-of-court settlement of $30 million as a result of the claim that their video journalist was said to be obstructing escape and not sufficiently helping people exit.[25]
  • In March 2008, JBL Speakers settled out of court for $815,000. JBL was accused of using flammable foam inside their speakers. The company denied any wrongdoing.[26]
  • Anheuser-Busch has offered $5 million.[27] McLaughlin & Moran, Anheuser-Busch's distributor, has offered $16 million.[27]
  • Home Depot and Polar Industries, Inc. (a Connecticut-based insulation company) made a settlement offer of $5 million.[28]
  • Providence radio station WHJY-FM promoted the show, which was emcee'd by its DJ, Mike "The Doctor" Gonsalves (who was one of the casualties that night). Clear Channel Broadcasting, WHJY's parent company, paid a settlement of $22 million in February 2008.[29]
  • American Foam Corporation who sold the insulation to The Station nightclub agreed in 2008 to pay $6.3 million to settle lawsuits relating to the fire.[30]
en.wikipedia.org

The Station nightclub fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Update……..
This lawsuit was brought by only 9 of the affected families and based on comments they hope this win brings about changes that allow more lawsuits against gun companies that have there products used to kill people and are willing to share how they circumvented the current law protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.

The door is wide open now.
 
Hi,

Yes, this is a very bad precedent. When a carpenter hits his thumb instead of the nail, does he blame the hammer?


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
Keystone19250 said:
Update……..
This lawsuit was brought by only 9 of the affected families and based on comments they hope this win brings about changes that allow more lawsuits against gun companies that have there products used to kill people and are willing to share how they circumvented the current law protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.

The door is wide open now.
Click to expand...
probably will mean too, that when the police (or other LEO) shoot and kill someone, the maker of the guns the police use can be sued as well.

the old saying, "give'em an inch, they take a yard" will be for real.
 
I would wager a great deal there is no evidence at all that the killer ever saw a Bushmaster ad in his life. And even if he did, it's a long stretch between "get your man card back" and "go kill all those kindergartners." It's an argument only a scumbag lawyer could make.

Something never discussed in these lawsuits: if gun makers are responsible for the harm done by other people using their products, do they not also deserve credit for the good done by other people using their products? How many people have been protected by police using Remington shotguns, rifles, etc? What about armed citizens? Soldiers? Can the plaintiffs pretend there is no such benefit? Such benefit cannot really be known, but it certainly exists, and should be subtracted from the harm they claim. I calculate it at about $400,000,000,000,000.

This is an existential fight, and Remington has chosen to capitulate. Badly done, Remington. Badly done.
 
I'm going to say that a lot of you with your slippery slope arguments need to relax a bit. As far as "scumbag lawyers" are concerned, we represent the people who hire us. It's easy to hate lawyers until you're up **** creek without a paddle, then we're your best friends.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Keystone19250 said:
You have some of your facts wrong, the mother and father bought all the firearms that the son who was documented as being mentally disabled had unlimited and unsecured access to.
This most likely wouldn’t have happened if the mother who locked the gun safe didn’t tell the son where the key was.
Click to expand...
Thank-you, I thought I remembered that fact and was rereading the story looking for that reference. Did they have a gun safe? If someone wants access bad enough they will get it, especially when battling an episode of mental illness. I will tell you about the tragic story of my brother-in-law who committed suicide about 25 years ago. I won't bore you with all the details, but he was showing some of the classic signs of someone that was thinking of ending his life. We even had him checked into a suicide prevention ward and in counseling more than once. He did not own any guns but his step-father, 75 miles away did. In the rural area that I grew up in, most families kept their firearms in locked gun cabinets with glass doors sans gun safes. His step-father kept his rifles in a gun cabinet and kept the ammo in a separate locked cabinet in the garage. My brother-in-law went to the store and bought his own ammo and then visited the house when he knew that there would be no one home, broke the glass of the cabinet, took one of the rifles and ended his life. He was a semi driver and once he passed away, they cleaned out his truck and found a box with poison, knifes, and rope tied in a noose. It just goes to show, it was not IF he was going to kill himself, it was HOW. Thankfully he called the ambulance and then shot himself so that a family member wouldn't find him and was not selfish enough to stage an event to take others with him.
 
benstt said:
Hmm...

So it was still the messed up kid who chose the rifle, works against Remington though I don't have information about WHY he chose a Bushmaster. Perhaps the advertising was not part of his decision making process, perhaps it was. I don't know. Yes, Mom and Dad could probably have prevented the whole thing.
Click to expand...
I would say it had more to do with every other wacko who used an AR 15 to cause mayhem. I agree with you that the parents , at least the mother , were sadly lacking in the efforts to keep the boy from having access to the firearms.
 
benstt said:
I'm going to say that a lot of you with your slippery slope arguments need to relax a bit. As far as "scumbag lawyers" are concerned, we represent the people who hire us. It's easy to hate lawyers until you're up **** creek without a paddle, then we're your best friends.
Click to expand...
My apologies to you and your professional colleagues who perform a valuable service. I meant to refer only to the subset of lawyers who are, in fact, scumbags.
 
benstt said:
I'm going to say that a lot of you with your slippery slope arguments need to relax a bit. As far as "scumbag lawyers" are concerned, we represent the people who hire us. It's easy to hate lawyers until you're up **** creek without a paddle, then we're your best friends.
Click to expand...
Hi,

Ok, yes, fair enough. Whether or not lawyers and insurance companies are perceived as "good guys" or "bad guys" depends on which side of the case you're on. Still, it's a bad precedent for our 2A rights and I can see no good to come of it. The insurance company, the "deep pockets" in this case, did not care how the settlement would affect 2A rights. They just wanted the least amount of payout at the most cost-efficient expense. Certainly the fight for 2A rights was not their concern.

Hopefully, since it seems the insurance company was liable and not the manufacturer, this will not be as damaging as it could have been. I guess we'll have to see how this plays out in the years to come.

(I am not a lawyer, but I married a paralegal.) :ROFLMAO:


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
Last edited:
BassCliff said:
Hi,

Ok, yes, fair enough. Whether or not lawyers and insurance companies are "good guys" or "bad guys" depends on which side of the case you're on. Still, it's a bad precedent for our 2A rights and no good will come of it. The insurance company, the "deep pockets" in this case, did not care how the settlement would affect 2A rights. They just wanted the least amount of payout at the most cost-efficient expense. Certainly the fight for 2A rights was not their concern.

Hopefully, since it seems the insurance company was liable and not the manufacturer, this will not be as damaging as it could have been. I guess we'll have to see how this plays out in the years to come.


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
Click to expand...
And why would the insurance company care?

Capitalism, baby. Gotta preserve the stockholders’ bottom line.

Nothing else matters.
 
HansGruber said:
It wasn’t Remington that settled.

Remington no longer exists; its various components have been stripped and sold off.

The insurance company that covered the former Remington settled…and they couldn’t care less about anything besides their bottom line.
Click to expand...
GunTalk Live reported the same.
 
While the settlement is definitely not a good thing, I do not believe that it will be a doomsday event for the firearms industry. The harmful legal precedent was set when SCOTUS refused to hear the case, not when the parties later settled the case. The Court's refusal to hear the case will be interpreted to mean that causes of action based on deceptive or negligent advertising/marketing claims filed against gun manufacturers/sellers in state courts are not prohibited by the PLCAA. SCOTUS did not issue a ruling stating that manufacturers and sellers can be sued over marketing and advertising, they just refused to intervene in this particular case. This leaves the door open for a future, hopefully more favorable, SCOTUS ruling on the issue. The PLCAA presumably still protects the firearm industry against claims based solely on the criminal misuse of their products.

I suspect that the immediate effects of this settlement will be felt by gun magazines. The obvious way to avoid future lawsuits over advertising claims is not to advertise. Manufacturers can simply provide sample firearms to their favorite internet "Influencers", and a few magazine reviewers, rather than writing huge checks to advertising agencies and print media companies. As long as the manufacturers are not paying or influencing reviewers, Independent firearm reviews are not advertising and manufacturers could most likely not be held liable for the content of the reviews.

The worst part for gun magazines and websites is that they will still have to review new firearms, or risk having no content to feature in their articles. The only upside for consumers is that firearm reviews may become more honest once the reviewers no longer risk losing advertising dollars if they give a poor score to a new gun. Unfortunately, cover prices for magazines would have to increase to offset the lost advertising revenue. All forms of print media have been suffering for years, and many publications could go under if readers are not be willing to pay more for the magazines.

These are just my personal predictions, and I've been wrong before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top