Sandy Hook Families Get Hearing Against Gun Maker

[Art Lambart II]

Cases like this have been tried many times before and they all have gone no where, the courts have ruled may times that a manufacture is not responsible for the way the consumer uses there product.

 

[johnnyblues]

Volatile subject for sure. My heart goes out to those people, one could never imagine the pain they feel. But to go after a gun manufacturer for something they had absolutely nothing to do with is absurd. Why not sue the knife maker if someone stabs someone and kills them, sue the car company for killing someone because the car goes too fast....Cmon.

 

[K-man]

This is a sad state for all involved. The attorneys for the families have convinced their clients that someone should pay, they know they don't stand much of a chance in court, but they are hoping the gun manufacturer makes a "business decision" along with their insurance company for a settlement instead of a costly court battle. I have been through that myself. Fought it all the way, won in court and was actually awarded legal fees. Well, 90% of them. Hope it stops the next lawyer. Worst three years of my life.

 

[Savage Hunter]

I admit to a little surprise at the vehemence of some of the posts here. As for rights and responsibilities, we surely agree that people can sue whoever they want. And if you don't agree, I assume you want to be the one to decide which lawsuits go ahead and which don't. At least until it's your lawsuit that someone else decides has no merit, without a hearing.

I assume a lawyer or anti-gun organization approached some of these parents with a proposal for a lawsuit, and in their pain and suffering (I can imagine no worse suffering than the loss of a child in these circumstances - it's our job as fathers to protect our children, and here we are helpless . . . ), they decided to try. Likely on the ground that "if one gun stays out of the wrong hands" . . . .etc. I don't agree with that reasoning, but I won't criticize these families for that. Grief expresses itself in many ways, and I don't think any one of us should be judging how someone else expresses their grief.

So now it's up to the gatekeepers - the courts - to decide if this lawsuit has merit. Note that the article says "the case faces long odds based on a string of dismissals." As you'd expect, this case is likely a loser.

So perhaps we can save the vitriol until there is actually a decision that imposes some liability.

the problem comes from having to pay big money defending yourself or business from frivolous lawsuits.
these people who are suing the gunmakers ought to have to pay the legal fees of the gunmaker when they lose.

 

[Hank2211]

the problem comes from having to pay big money defending yourself or business from frivolous lawsuits.
these people who are suing the gunmakers ought to have to pay the legal fees of the gunmaker when they lose.

I agree with that completely, but surely that's a different issue?

 

[jeff]

I'm going to sue the pencil maker for misspelling !!!

 

[Red Leg]

I agree with that completely, but surely that's a different issue?

No, I think that is exactly the issue in this instance. Most developed countries have provisions which add financial risk or legal barriers to bringing frivolous lawsuits. A very effective mechanism is that the losing plaintiff picks up the court cost tab - usually a pretty meaningful number. That would put an end to a lot of contingency fee cases in this country. I suspect this one would never go to trial in such an environment. Here, however, it is the sued party (particularly in a contingency case) who picks up the financial burden - his lawyers get paid regardless of outcome. A real "prove your innocent" scenario. It is why corporations and insurance companies so often settle, and why yours and my insurance costs continue to grow.

And if I am treading on the toes of a forum member attorney, sorry, but my trial lawyer brother and I also have this debate regularly.

 

[Witold Krzyżanowski]

Sandy Hook families get hearing against gun maker
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ilies-get-hearing-against-gun-maker/80769182/


"Survivors of the 2012 shooting and victims’ parents sued Bushmaster Firearms International, and parent manufacturer Remington Arms, which produces the AR-15.

The group alleged Bushmaster marketed the military-style weapon recklessly since it should have known it would end up in hands of people who shouldn’t have them. The legal basis, known as “negligent entrustment,” is usually applied to shops that illegally sell weapons to the wrong people.

The case faces long odds based on a string of dismissals. But should it move forward, it would shed unwanted scrutiny on the gun industry."

Total idiocy.
Witold

 

[Hank2211]

No, I think that is exactly the issue in this instance. Most developed countries have provisions which add financial risk or legal barriers to bringing frivolous lawsuits. A very effective mechanism is that the losing plaintiff picks up the court cost tab - usually a pretty meaningful number. That would put an end to a lot of contingency fee cases in this country. I suspect this one would never go to trial in such an environment. Here, however, it is the sued party (particularly in a contingency case) who picks up the financial burden - his lawyers get paid regardless of outcome. A real "prove your innocent" scenario. It is why corporations and insurance companies so often settle, and why yours and my insurance costs continue to grow.

And if I am treading on the toes of a forum member attorney, sorry, but my trial lawyer brother and I also have this debate regularly.

If the US litigation system is the issue, then we are on the same page Red Leg. Without risk of loss you get an explosion of litigation, much of it frivolous.

However, this thread was about families suing gun makers, and they were being attacked for doing so. I suggested we not judge how their grief was expressed, and wait until the law suit is considered by the courts before expressing outrage about another example of a lack of personal responsibility. I agree with those who say a lack of personal responsibility is at the root of many of our society's ills. But that should be expressed on a thread about the legal system, or about personal responsibility, rather than one about Sandy Hook families. Attack those issues, not the families.

 

[Red Leg]

Hank we will have to agree to disagree. I believe the only reason that those families, however grief stricken, have the standing to bring a case at all against a gun manufacturer is because of our judicial system. And regardless of precedent, that gun manufacturer now has to spend enormous capital defending himself - whether directly in the form of legal fees, or indirectly in the form of higher liability insurance rates. What is particularly onerous is that they are having to mount a defense of the simple existence of their product. So yes, I fault the families. I would wager a meaningful sum that this is a contingency case. The lawyers see a chance for notoriety, the anti-gun movement sees the chance to damage the gun industry, and the participating families get to potentially hit the lottery. If they wanted to sue someone to achieve some measure of justice, how about suing a school district that allowed such a madman access to their unprotected children.

 

[thriller]

Who has a patent on the spoon? I have a bone to pick with them for making me fat and new legal standing on which to sue them.

 

[8x68]

As tragic an incident as it was I think this is a publicity stunt. Maybe something along the lines of going to McDonald's and buying a coffee....burning your mouth on said coffee because it's hot and suing McDonalds for negligence due to it being a hot coffee!
OR putting your RV on cruise control while driving on the highway going back the bedroom and having a sleep. RV driver wondered why he crashed....believe it not this guy sued the RV maker and won. Judges in both cases cited negligence on Mcdonalds for not providing warning that the coffee is hot, and the RV manufacturer as they did not provide proper explanation on how cruise control works.
Maybe not the best choice of court cases but it just shows you how stupid the system is.

 

[edward]

Utter bullsh****.
The kid that did that shooting was a fuc.....ed up person who should have been in a nut house. His family is the problem , most especially his dead mother. You don't buy a gun for an autistic and oppositional defiant person plain and simple.
The gun company did nothing wrong!

So if he had used an axe would the family want to sue Stanley Tool for the same thing? Or if he had gone in that school with a baseball bat, would they sue Louisville Slugger? I promise you that with either of these mentioned items you could kill just as many people as that sick SOB did, unless there was someone there armed and trained to use the weapon! End of rant.

tell it like it is charlie.

 

[edward]

As tragic an incident as it was I think this is a publicity stunt. Maybe something along the lines of going to McDonald's and buying a coffee....burning your mouth on said coffee because it's hot and suing McDonalds for negligence due to it being a hot coffee!
OR putting your RV on cruise control while driving on the highway going back the bedroom and having a sleep. RV driver wondered why he crashed....believe it not this guy sued the RV maker and won. Judges in both cases cited negligence on Mcdonalds for not providing warning that the coffee is hot, and the RV manufacturer as they did not provide proper explanation on how cruise control works.
Maybe not the best choice of court cases but it just shows you how stupid the system is.

warnings dont matter,look at the tobacco industry,warnings forever and still the courts award the smoker because he or she is dying.

 

[Pheroze]

In North Korea there is no accountability. I bet they have cheap insurance. In western democratic societies there is accountability. If you profit off of a product be prepared to defend your product if your product harms someone. If you can't stomach the fact you will be questioned go into another line of work.

So a business has to have liability insurance. Last time I checked the insurance compaies had a profit of 77 billion dollars. They do not write liability insurance because they lose money. They actually are not a charity.

Finally, the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. They do not turn up to court without spending large sums on gathering the evidence they need to prove their case. Even in a no cost jurisdiction there is expense on both parties.

Take pride in the fact that the poorest and most vulnerable person in your society can challenge the richest and most powerful. They may not be successful but they can do it. It's a double check that does not exist everywhere. If the product is sound then the business model will account for the fact that you can't just put stuff out there. Anyone remember the side saddle gas tank or the Pinto?

 

[Red Leg]

In North Korea there is no accountability. I bet they have cheap insurance. In western democratic societies there is accountability. If you profit off of a product be prepared to defend your product if your product harms someone. If you can't stomach the fact you will be questioned go into another line of work.

So a business has to have liability insurance. Last time I checked the insurance compaies had a profit of 77 billion dollars. They do not write liability insurance because they lose money. They actually are not a charity.

Finally, the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. They do not turn up to court without spending large sums on gathering the evidence they need to prove their case. Even in a no cost jurisdiction there is expense on both parties.

Take pride in the fact that the poorest and most vulnerable person in your society can challenge the richest and most powerful. They may not be successful but they can do it. It's a double check that does not exist everywhere. If the product is sound then the business model will account for the fact that you can't just put stuff out there. Anyone remember the side saddle gas tank or the Pinto?

Of course the insurance companies are profitable - our wide open litigation system insures that they and the lawyers who attack and defend them make tons of money. It is the poor insured business owner, doctor, home owner, fill in the blank, who is forced to buy their product at ever more exorbitant rates who is being ruined in this litigious utopia you describe. The comparison with North Korea is specious. Our country, unlike any other democracy of which I am familiar, has a treble damages remedy. While technically focused on anti-trust cases, it has become the foundation of the US's well recognized litigation culture. Individuals and classes of individuals should have the absolute right to protect themselves from defective products (your pinto example for instance). But only here could a plaintiff class go after a perfectly working/ legal product because the maker should have known it could have fallen into the wrong hands. And because of our contingency model (only extant because of huge awards), plaintiff classes do not, as a rule, spend large sums of money. They will do a 60/40 split with the attorney and roll the dice. We desperately need tort reform in order to bring us in line with the rest of the developed world.

 

[Pheroze]

Of course the insurance companies are profitable - our wide open litigation system insures that they and the lawyers who attack and defend them make tons of money. It is the poor insured business owner, doctor, home owner, fill in the blank, who is forced to buy their product at ever more exorbitant rates who is being ruined in this litigious utopia you describe. The comparison with North Korea is specious. Our country, unlike any other democracy of which I am familiar, has a treble damages remedy. While technically focused on anti-trust cases, it has become the foundation of the US's well recognized litigation culture. Individuals and classes of individuals should have the absolute right to protect themselves from defective products (your pinto example for instance). But only here could a plaintiff class go after a perfectly working/ legal product because the maker should have known it could have fallen into the wrong hands. And because of our contingency model (only extant because of huge awards), plaintiff classes do not, as a rule, spend large sums of money. They will do a 60/40 split with the attorney and roll the dice. We desperately need tort reform in order to bring us in line with the rest of the developed world.

Business makes an product and sells it for a profit. They pay for insurance which offers coverage to the business for a profit. The insurance company ensures that an injured person can recover some of the care costs, lost income etc when the business has injured them or killed a loved one. That is the unstated benefit of insurance is that it benefits both sides - the business owner is free to make money and the injured person is saved from being destitute when they are injured. It is actually a good thing for society. The lawyer funds the payment of experts. Buying medical records, hiring investigators....last trial I did against a doctor who put 50 holes in the bowel of a carpenter rendering him a gastric cripple, required me to fund $75,000 in expenses. If we don't win ain't no one paying it back to me because he can't work anymore. So the contingency model allows him to go after the doctor who has destroyed his bowels. No way could he afford to tackle the medical establishment otherwise. And, if successful I anticipate...wait for it...a profit.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I suggested we not judge how their grief was expressed, and wait until the law suit is considered by the courts before expressing outrage about another example of a lack of personal responsibility. I agree with those who say a lack of personal responsibility is at the root of many of our society's ills. But that should be expressed on a thread about the legal system, or about personal responsibility, rather than one about Sandy Hook families. Attack those issues, not the families.

I'm not sure if you were including me in that post. But I do agree with you. When I mentioned holding those responsible and accountable, I was speaking to the shooter and potentially those that enabled him and not to the victim's families.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Business makes an product and sells it for a profit. They pay for insurance which offers coverage to the business for a profit. The insurance company ensures that an injured person can recover some of the care costs, lost income etc when the business has injured them or killed a loved one. That is the unstated benefit of insurance is that it benefits both sides - the business owner is free to make money and the injured person is saved from being destitute when they are injured. It is actually a good thing for society. The lawyer funds the payment of experts. Buying medical records, hiring investigators....last trial I did against a doctor who put 50 holes in the bowel of a carpenter rendering him a gastric cripple, required me to fund $75,000 in expenses. If we don't win ain't no one paying it back to me because he can't work anymore. So the contingency model allows him to go after the doctor who has destroyed his bowels. No way could he afford to tackle the medical establishment otherwise. And, if successful I anticipate...wait for it...a profit.

No problem with that situation Pheroze, lawyers do serve a purpose. But I don't think the tort reform which @Red Leg speaks of equates to a system without accountability. In fact I think it would serve to have a system of greater accountability where frivolous lawsuits are curtailed. Where in fact businesses and/or people with money aren't paying out to have the lawsuit dismissed as it's cheaper alternative than to go to court and win the case.

 

[Pheroze]

It was poor form of me to personalize it but I just wanted to make a point. Tort reform often means regulation. And, barriers get erected that allow people to hide behind protections. Nothing wrong with a loser pays system. The beauty of the contingency tort system is that it allows the parties to get an issue resolved in a forum designed to resolve disputes. Done professionally it can allow the weak to compete on an equal footing. Done poorly it is a hussel. The Americans are great at keeping government out of their business. Private lawsuits are a powerful tool without government regulation