In an outrageous decision the Supreme court is allowing the relatives of the Sandy Hook shooting victims to sue Remington Arms because the shooter happened to use a Bushmaster rifle which is a company owned by Remington.
Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit against gunmaker proceed
The Supreme Court, in an order released Tuesday, allowed families of Sandy Hook victims to proceed with a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Remington Arms despite the company’s claims that it was protected from liability by federal law.
After the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in March — citing one of the few exemptions to the federal law — that Remington could be sued under state law over its marketing practices, Remington petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling.
The gunmaker argued that the state court’s interpretation of the marketing exemption is, “intolerable given Congress’s ‘intention to create national uniformity'” with the federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. “As the dissenters below noted, lawsuits like this one are precisely the kind the PLCAA was enacted to prevent.”
Gunman Adam Lanza opened fire at the Newtown, Conn., school with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle on Dec. 14, 2012, killing 20 first-graders and six educators. The 20-year-old gunman earlier shot his mother to death at their Newtown home, and killed himself as police arrived at the school. The rifle was legally owned by his mother.
A survivor and relatives of nine victims filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington in 2015, saying the company should have never sold such a dangerous weapon to the public and alleging it targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.
What? So by this logic every automobile manufacturer should be sued whenever someone gets drunk, drives, and kills someone. For instance, there was a fatal crash involving a Ferrari and a Porsche ten years ago, “In what appears to have been a side by side race with a white Porsche on a long stretch of road in Newport Beach, California, Lewis’ red Ferrari made contact with the other car, lost control and collided with a light pole.” I actually saw the aftermath of this accident the following day on my way to work.
The driver of the Ferrari was killed and the driver of the Porsche was arrested for felony drunk driving. The driver of the Porsche, his relatives and the relatives of the Ferrari guy should be able to sue because those companies should never have sold such dangerous cars to the public. I mean who needs cars that fast, right? AND I’m pretty sure both of these cars are portrayed in numerous video racing games that are played by younger, “at-risk” males as well. So where are the lawsuits? And while we’re at it, let’s sue whatever companies made the alcohol these morons consumed, right? Ridiculous.
Tuesday’s order from the Supreme Court does not mean Remington or other gun manufacturers will face any immediate liability, but it does set the stage for potential court battles over whether or not the gun industry is responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre and potentially open the door to other suits in relation to other mass shootings or murders.
The gun industry is in NO WAY responsible for any mass shootings or murders. They simply make a product. If someone chooses to misuse that product, that’s on the individual not the manufacturer.
“The decision will have immediate and severe consequences, exposing the firearms industry to costly and burdensome litigation,” Remington argued in its petition to the Supreme Court. “Thus, as a leading scholar on firearm-manufacturer liability has explained, the decision below will ‘unleash a flood of lawsuits across the country,'” it continued, citing Timothy D. Lytton, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law.
Joshua Kosoff, a lawyer for the families’ victims, applauded the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year when Remington made its plea to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a newly refreshed conservative majority but refused to side with the gun industry Tuesday.
“Our state’s highest court has already ruled that the families deserve their day in court and we are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will defer to that well-reasoned opinion,” Koskoff said in a statement.
The high court’s denial of Remington’s petition also does not mean it will be the tribunal’s last word on the issue, as it often allows controversial issues to percolate in lower courts for years before weighing in. The Remington case could also make its way back to the Supreme Court on other grounds.
The case will now proceed in a lower state court.
Which doesn’t mean that Remington might not just cave and pay a settlement. Bushmaster did it before. Remember the D.C. snipers?
“In 2002, Bushmaster and a Bushmaster dealer were the subject of a civil lawsuit brought by two survivors and six families of victims of the October 2002 D.C. sniper attacks which resulted in the deaths of ten and injures to three people. On September 8, 2004 Bushmaster agreed to pay $550,000 of a $2.5 million settlement in the lawsuit and Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Washington, the Bushmaster dealer from whom one of the perpetrators said he had shoplifted the rifle, paid $2 million. The company cited mounting legal fees and compassion for the victims and their families as the reason for settling.”
Asinine. Let’s hope they don’t give in on this one.
