Lawsuit By Sandy Hook Victims Against Gun Manufacturer Allowed To Move Forward

Hammster said:

Because there’s no way that a manufacturer of a product should be held liable for the misuse of their product.

Click to expand...

Oh! So you didn't read the article.

Hammster said:

Okay. But there also K.I.T.T.

Click to expand...

K.I.T.T. is canceled out by his evil brother K.A.R.R.

Coca Cola gave me diabetes, time to get on-board the money train.

Hammster said:

If you really think that’s what this is about, then you’ve been duped.

Click to expand...

No. I haven't been duped. I'm not a fool. But I try to not get sucked into imprecise argument as often as I can.
My understanding:
1) They believe Remington advertised a product to a market they were not allowed to.
Let's say they even get found guilty of this.
How could they then have legal grounds to connect the shooter himself to the company? They were bought legally by mom.
Sure they will bring it to court to TRY it, but I simply don't believe it would win. I'm not even convinced they'll win the first leg of the race.

Hammster said:

Because there’s no way that a manufacturer of a product should be held liable for the misuse of their product.

Click to expand...

It really depends on the intended use . Some guns, arguably, are not designed primarily for sporting or hunting purposes. It could be argued they are designed for illegitimate uses, for instance, assault.

I think they have a weak case, but I'm not a lawyer.

Hammster said:

Because there’s no way that a manufacturer of a product should be held liable for the misuse of their product.

Click to expand...

Guns are designed to shoot people. How was one misued in this case?

hislegacy said:

If they are successful, then I have a good chance of winning a case against Ford. The manufacturers of the implement that killed my family member.

Click to expand...

Are Fords designed and manufactured to kill people?

Hammster said:

Oh wow. You’ve brought up a point I never thought of. It never occurred to me that when Remington designed their rifle they had murder of children in mind.

They should be sued.

Click to expand...

You claim the gun was misused.
Guns are designed to kill people (not juat children per your faux histrionics).
Ergo the gun was used as designed and manufactured.

That said I think this lawsuit is just as inane a stunt as the bazillion dollar lawsuits by smirky Sandmann's family. Id just like to see some more substantive reason for throwing out a judge's decision than "it's stupid".

Hammster said:

If you cannot make a distinction between killing and murder, then I have nothing to say that will convince you.

Click to expand...

If your argument is founded on sematics then you're correct. If you have a logical argument, then I'm all ears.

USincognito said:

Are Fords designed and manufactured to kill people?

Click to expand...

Are box cutters? Is McDonald's?

This is going to open a very large can of worms.

rambot said:

No. I haven't been duped. I'm not a fool. But I try to not get sucked into imprecise argument as often as I can.
My understanding:
1) They believe Remington advertised a product to a market they were not allowed to.
Let's say they even get found guilty of this.
How could they then have legal grounds to connect the shooter himself to the company? They were bought legally by mom.
Sure they will bring it to court to TRY it, but I simply don't believe it would win. I'm not even convinced they'll win the first leg of the race.

Click to expand...

The opinion explicitly tells the reader the plaintiff's allegations. The plaintiff made two allegations. The first allegation in the complaint, according to the court, is:


In other words, it is alleged the statute was violated on the basis of claiming the defendants manufactured and sold to the wider public "an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by the military and law enforcement."

The plaintiff's second theory of liability was related to alleging a marketing violation.


The negligence theory under CUPTA was dismissed by the trial court and upheld on appeal. The Plaintiff's second theory of liability was determined to be a lawful cause of action raised under CUPTA and may proceed in the trial court.

NotreDame said:

Not really. The opinion explicitly tells the reader the plaintiff's allegations. The plaintiff made two allegations. The first allegation in the complaint, according to the court, is:

"The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the defendants negligently
entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle."​

In other words, it is alleged the statute was violated on the basis of claiming the defendants manufactured and sold to the wider public "an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by the military and law enforcement."

The plaintiff's second theory of liability was related to alleging a marketing violation.

The plaintiffs’ second theory of liability was that the defendants marketed the rifle, through advertising and product catalogs, in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of the
rifle as a combat weapon that is intended to be used for the purposes of waging war and killing human beings. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants advertised this rifle differently from how they would promote and sell rifles intended for legal civilian purposes such as hunting and
recreation.
​

Click to expand...

So it's the absence of the disclaimer "don't try this at home" kind of thing?
The new sports car is shown speeding down a highway and sliding sideways through the wet road curves but that's not how the manufacturer would promote it to be driven by a teenager. So they're careful to add the "closed course, stunt driver..." language in the video as a disclaimer.

Remington is playing both sides of the marketing/legal debate - playing up the gun's militaristic attributes in the advertising but then claiming it's not really for that when someone uses it in that capacity.

Or at least that's the claim?

FenderTL5 said:

So it's the absence of the disclaimer "don't try this at home" kind of thing?
The new sports car is shown speeding down a highway and sliding sideways through the wet road curves but that's not how the manufacturer would promote it to be driven by a teenager. So they're careful to add the "closed course, stunt driver..." language in the video as a disclaimer.

Remington is playing both sides of the marketing/legal debate - playing up the gun's militaristic attributes in the advertising but then claiming it's not really for that when someone uses it in that capacity.

Or at least that's the claim?

Click to expand...

Something like that. Whether it turns out to be legal or not, some people find it disturbing that a gun company is specifically targeting their marketing of pretend army guns to the minuteman wannabe segment of the gun-owning population.

Hammster said:

It’s logical that there’s a difference between murder and killing. That’s more than semantics.

Click to expand...

Odd, the last time I checked murder involved the killing of someone. Is there a definition for murder which doesn't involve killing?

And once agian, in case some of you missed it:
>> That said I think this lawsuit is just as inane a stunt as the bazillion dollar lawsuits by smirky Sandmann's famiky. Id just like to see some more substantive reason for throwing out a judge's decision than "it's stupid" <<

Personally I find this lawsuit to be grandstanding and a stunt, but a judge has found this particular complaint to have merit.