Remington offers $33 million to families of Sandy Hook school shooting victims

[BigErnNP]

Update:

Sandy Hook families settle for $73M with gun maker Remington

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...

news.yahoo.com

The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School have agreed to a $73 million settlement of a lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used.

 

[Ziggidy]

Update:

Sandy Hook families settle for $73M with gun maker Remington

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...

news.yahoo.com

The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School have agreed to a $73 million settlement of a lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used.

Let’s open the flood gates…..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ingomike]

Gun prices to launch exponentially soon to cover increased insurance for manufacturers…

 

[KLB]

Insurance companies ran the numbers and chose to cut their possible losses.

They should have fought it out and tried to take it to the USSC again if they lost.

 

[Ingomike]

Insurance companies ran the numbers and chose to cut their possible losses.

They should have fought it out and tried to take it to the USSC again if they lost.

Yes, gun manufacturers are just that, not protectors of the 2A, or even the defenders of laws written to protect them.

 

[gregr]

This sets an awful precedent. Supposedly, firearms makers are exempt from being able to be sued for the criminal misuse of their lawful, lawfully made product.

 

[NWIGuy]

Does marketing for a product get scrutinized/approved by any governmental agency before it can be published?

Just wondering how they could be at fault for lawfully marketing a product. Seems if there was a legal problem with any of the material, it would've been brought up to Remington to change.

What exact law did they break?

 

[BigRed]

Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear greatly that the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar ever more loudly, ever more widely.

 

[Trapper Jim]

Sam, you better get Matt. Wake up people and turn your anger to the right source. The tail is wagging the dog. The Right or Left Political Platform, on all levels have let us down for a very long time. Wether it is soft on crime(a bipartisan problem) or spending the money on their own agendas, the bleeding hearts find it easier to go after the manufacturers.

So before you hate the outcome of a corporation being out litigated, consider what the future holds for a country who is soft on crime, soft on mental illness, and will not step up to fund the branches for all the people here within our borders.

Hell in a hand basket, I think.

 

[Hawkeye7br]

So... is this a result of poor marketing that didn't look at how it could be perceived when things go bad? Given the path of media chasing Russian hoax, CEO's guilty of sexual harassment, etc, I can see where a dumbass CEO approved a $hit for brains marketing campaign.

 

[thompal]

Seems to me they are setting precedent that will open up a million additional law suits from anyone that gets shot in any circumstance.
I would bet that the other manufacturers are screaming mad.

Remington offers $33 million to families of Sandy Hook school shooting victims | Reuters

I don't see how it can be limited to only gun companies. Someone gets killed by a drunk driver? It's Ford's fault and Budweiser's fault! Someone gets scammed by a caller using an iphone? It's Apple's fault!

Holding a manufacturer liable when someone buy's their product and uses it illegally is a deep well that I'm sure lawyers are salivating to plumb.

 

[bwframe]

I don't see how it can be limited to only gun companies. Someone gets killed by a drunk driver? It's Ford's fault and Budweiser's fault! Someone gets scammed by a caller using an iphone? It's Apple's fault!

Holding a manufacturer liable when someone buy's their product and uses it illegally is a deep well that I'm sure lawyers are salivating to plumb.

Exactly!

Businesses that could not stay afloat during the Fauci/Holcomb lockdowns should sue to recover damages from what we suspected and now know were not actually science.


.

 

[DragonGunner]

Why would they settle and give up $73 million.....on thinking on this maybe they settled because the state is liberal, the judge is liberal the jury is all liberals......and all the liberals are crazy and can't think normally anymore. In other words Remington was going to lose, so maybe $73 million was the cheaper route to go than being found guilty, happens all the time for non guilty people. The problem here seems to be liberals. Maybe if in another state it would never even got into court. And don't bring up the Constitution that we know is pretty much just a paper with writing on it.

 

[gregr]

Why would they settle and give up $73 million.....on thinking on this maybe they settled because the state is liberal, the judge is liberal the jury is all liberals......and all the liberals are crazy and can't think normally anymore. In other words Remington was going to lose, so maybe $73 million was the cheaper route to go than being found guilty, happens all the time for non guilty people. The problem here seems to be liberals. Maybe if in another state it would never even got into court. And don't bring up the Constitution that we know is pretty much just a paper with writing on it.

I`m still struggling to understand how and why remington paid out any settlement. Firearms manufacturers are supposedly protected from being sued for the actions of criminals.

 

[Bugzilla]

They have the deepest pockets

In the early 2000’s Lilly and another pharma were sued because a pharmacist, in KC I believe, was diluting a cancer drug and there was at least one fatality. The pharma companies had nothing to do with this, actually discovered it, but did have deep pockets. Settlement was out of court and not made public.

 

[Expat]

I`m still struggling to understand how and why remington paid out any settlement. Firearms manufacturers are supposedly protected from being sued for the actions of criminals.

Same here. Why this case? Why now? Was there something different about this one from the several other shooting cases that have gotten kicked out by the court, even if it has to go up to SCOTUS.

 

[gregr]

Same here. Why this case? Why now? Was there something different about this one from the several other shooting cases that have gotten kicked out by the court, even if it has to go up to SCOTUS.

And remington has done a deep disservice to other gun manufacturers, us as law-abiding gun owners, and the very fabric of the Second Amendment with this settlement. This Genie cannot be put back into the bottle. DAMN them.

 

[Ziggidy]

This sets an awful precedent. Supposedly, firearms makers are exempt from being able to be sued for the criminal misuse of their lawful, lawfully made product.

Let the gun companies sue those who fail to sue them. Let the gun companies sue for defamation of character after something like this.

What people do not understand is this opens the door for a multitude of lawsuits across a very broad arena. Some one uses a baseball bat wrongly, an auto, ice pick, knife, a rope, a beer bottle. ANY object used as a weapon against people, outside of its intention, can be criminal.

 

[Trapper Jim]

BTW, has any body confirmed it was a Remington made firearm or a real BFI out of Maine? And where is Cerberus in all this? After all it was CCM that led to the gutting of Remington in the first place. Something perhaps Dan Quail might shed some light on?

Also, when you cannot control Johnny from getting into the cookie jar, then our society has accepted removing the cookie jar as an easier, kinder way of raising little Johnny.

You get what you pay for.

 

[KLB]

I`m still struggling to understand how and why remington paid out any settlement. Firearms manufacturers are supposedly protected from being sued for the actions of criminals.

They weren't sued for the use of the gun in a crime. This article explains the gist of the lawsuit.

US Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Appeal by Gun Manufacturer, Remington, in Case Brought by Families of Sandy Hook Massacre Victims

US Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Appeal by Gun Manufacturer, Remington, in Case Brought by Families of Sandy Hook Massacre Victims

www.whiteandwilliams.com

It was still a bogus lawsuit. The CT Supreme Court interpreted the law to suit their desires. The USSC would not take the case for that ruling.

Also realize Remington didn't settle, their insurance companies did.

They should have fought it and then tried again to take it to the USSC when they lost.