Notices
Like Tree57Likes

Remington can be sued

Old 03-15-2019, 06:04 AM
  #1  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Peoples Republic of NJ
Posts: 1,253
Default Remington can be sued

Hard to believe this case can proceed.
How many other manufacturers does this open up to liabilities?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47578345
Rags is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 06:18 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 678
Default

It won't stand up if appealed to the USSC
tprice and YFMF like this.
R Days is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 06:20 AM
  #3  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 7,360
Default

And that's what happens when you have activist judges with an agenda.
Cracker, KeithS, nccoaster and 8 others like this.

Last edited by mikefloyd; 03-15-2019 at 06:31 AM. Reason: auto correct
mikefloyd is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 06:27 AM
  #4  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,610
Default

I know a guy who has a family member who died by a head bashing with a baseball bat. Can the bat company be sued too?
Cracker, tprice and m9000 like this.
OldPete is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 06:32 AM
  #5  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 7,360
Default

Originally Posted by OldPete View Post
I know a guy who has a family member who died by a head bashing with a baseball bat. Can the bat company be sued too?
Call Morgan and Morgan; they'll sue anyone.
tprice and Cobia 217 like this.
mikefloyd is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 06:34 AM
  #6  
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 98
Default

I know someone who was killed when a driver distracted by their phone hit them. Can the family sue Apple and ATT?
jjc0009 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 06:37 AM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suffolk, Va.
Posts: 16,977
Default

Originally Posted by OldPete View Post
I know a guy who has a family member who died by a head bashing with a baseball bat. Can the bat company be sued too?
Well if they advertised it as a killing machine then I'd say yes. If you read why they allowed the case to move forward it point out their advertising not the fact that its a gun.
fishingfun is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 06:54 AM
  #8  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in the middle of Michigan
Posts: 10,376
Default

Connecticut Supreme Court was divided 4-3 on this decision to let the case go forward. Remington ads said something to indicate that buying their AR15 would get the buyer his "man card". That and some other marketing examples were shared by the plaintiff's attorney. Overall, their case sounded pretty weak, but it will allow the plaintiffs to subpoena marketing information from Remington. Connecticut also has a law prohibiting marketing military-style firearms to civilians. We'll have to watch this case and see how it plays out.
yarcraft91 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:08 AM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: One bridge south of Clearwater Beach
Posts: 980
Default

Anyone can be sued for anything by anyone and lawyers know this and more often than not, it is a shakedown. Case may not have merit, but they will settle out of court.

A few years ago, my dad owned two motocross tracks. One of the tracks was right next to Croom Motorcycle Area in the Withlacoochee State Forest. One weekday, some moron decided to cut through the fence put up by the state, cross the 6' easement and then cut the fence that we put up with NO Trespassing signs every 20'. They go the wrong way on the track, go off one of the big jumps backwards, crash and laid there in the hot Florida sun all afternoon and were found the next day after a search was initiated when their family said they didn't return home the day before. Guy was in bad shape and paralyzed, but alive. He sued my father, the state, Honda, the dealership that sold him the bike and the helmet manufacturer. My father wanted to fight it and was ready to throw money at it to do it, but insurance said nope, it's our case now and it's not up to you. Well, everyone's insurance company stepped up and said they would rather settle out of court (even if they were right) to avoid the cost and publicity. Guy ended up getting a couple of million from all the lawsuits combined. Not right, but it is what it is. Lawyers like John Morgan know this and use the insurance companies as their personal piggy banks by extorting money out of them, knowing most will make a quick cash settlement to avoid court. Write a letter threatening to sue for millions, insurance company settles for $100,000...lawyer takes their 33% commission, not a bad payday for a letter and a few minutes of their time.
SEATOAD and Cobia 217 like this.
Diverboy is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:19 AM
  #10  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Augustine, Fl
Posts: 21,796
Default

Unreal !!
savedbygrace6868 likes this.
Cracker is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:32 AM
  #11  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Lewes, DE
Posts: 10,200
Default

Originally Posted by fishingfun View Post
Well if they advertised it as a killing machine then I'd say yes. If you read why they allowed the case to move forward it point out their advertising not the fact that its a gun.
Nobody who is pissed off by the fact this is happening will read the reason for the case moving forward.

At first I was flabbergasted that this was allowed to move forward, but then read the reasoning. In my opinion, the advertising angle, and what the lawsuit is about is solid, and this will wind up being a benchmark case for firearms advertising in the future.

This isn't a move to ban guns or a 'guns bad' lawsuit. It is a lawsuit to bring more responsibility to the marketing of a deadly item. I'm behind that.
KBH likes this.
TorFed is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:33 AM
  #12  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On The Tenna Sea
Posts: 13,387
Default

Silly Yankees. Sometimes there just aren't enough walls.

This would be like someone suing GM/Chevrolet for building the Corvette that was running over 175MPH when it hit a school bus and killed all the kids onboard. There is absolutely no reason to build a car that will go that fast when the speed limit is less than half that.
Freeebird is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:40 AM
  #13  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On The Tenna Sea
Posts: 13,387
Default

Originally Posted by TorFed View Post
Nobody who is pissed off by the fact this is happening will read the reason for the case moving forward.

At first I was flabbergasted that this was allowed to move forward, but then read the reasoning. In my opinion, the advertising angle, and what the lawsuit is about is solid, and this will wind up being a benchmark case for firearms advertising in the future.

This isn't a move to ban guns or a 'guns bad' lawsuit. It is a lawsuit to bring more responsibility to the marketing of a deadly item. I'm behind that.
I read that article twice, and I didn't see anything specific about this alleged, "advertising angle". This is just a legal maneuver to try and find a legitimate reason to blame the gun, not the shooter.

[COLOR=left=#404040]"The families' goal has always been to shed light on Remington's calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans' safety," said Josh Koshoff, a lawyer for the victims' families.

Court high-risk users? What constitutes a high-risk user?

Why does this stupid color crap show up whenever I copy and paste from something?[/COLOR]
Freeebird is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:47 AM
  #14  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Fairhaven, MA
Posts: 8,646
Default

Originally Posted by TorFed View Post
This isn't a move to ban guns or a 'guns bad' lawsuit. It is a lawsuit to bring more responsibility to the marketing of a deadly item. I'm behind that.
Unfortunately in some activist circles, this is considered a "foot in the door," regardless if the marketing was overdone. It will get played up in the media as a huge step forward in their war against gun violence and the libs will squeeze every drop out of it. Unfortunate, but watch for more of the same.

Cobia 217 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:52 AM
  #15  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Lewes, DE
Posts: 10,200
Default

Originally Posted by Freeebird View Post
I read that article twice, and I didn't see anything specific about this alleged, "advertising angle". This is just a legal maneuver to try and find a legitimate reason to blame the gun, not the shooter.

[color=left=#404040]?[/color]
They aren't blaming the gun. They aren't blaming the industry as a whole. That is the point. It is a very specific lawsuit. I don't know what that article posted says, as I have read 3 others this morning. If you read an article on the judges findings you will see what I am referring to.

Basically this is a lawsuit similar to those which made cigarette ads change so much they were marketing to make smoking 'cool'.
TorFed is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:55 AM
  #16  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Augustine, Fl
Posts: 21,796
Default

Originally Posted by TorFed View Post
Nobody who is pissed off by the fact this is happening will read the reason for the case moving forward.

At first I was flabbergasted that this was allowed to move forward, but then read the reasoning. In my opinion, the advertising angle, and what the lawsuit is about is solid, and this will wind up being a benchmark case for firearms advertising in the future.

This isn't a move to ban guns or a 'guns bad' lawsuit. It is a lawsuit to bring more responsibility to the marketing of a deadly item. I'm behind that.
BullSH!t !!!!!!! There are cautionary labels and statements and warnings in the gun case
Second, this IS ALL ABOUT THE EVIL GUN. I have never scene an ad that is anything but protection or your rights by the 2nd Amendment.. There is no ad suggesting you kill people..
Lawyer manipulation to go after deep pockets (not bashing all lawyers just saying going after a manufacturer for someone wrongly using their product is no bueno)

The cigarette reasoning is wrong too, everybody knows cigarettes help kill you. You have to be an adult to purchase them, sorry that is wrong too..
Cracker is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:56 AM
  #17  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On The Tenna Sea
Posts: 13,387
Default

Originally Posted by TorFed View Post
They aren't blaming the gun. They aren't blaming the industry as a whole. That is the point. It is a very specific lawsuit. I don't know what that article posted says, as I have read 3 others this morning. If you read an article on the judges findings you will see what I am referring to.

Basically this is a lawsuit similar to those which made cigarette ads change so much they were marketing to make smoking 'cool'.
Can you say, apples and oranges?

Remington wasnít advertising smoking anyone with a AR, and going after the manufacturer is very much blaming the gun. Itís just a legal trick to try and make this into something it isnít.
Cracker and Cobia 217 like this.
Freeebird is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:02 AM
  #18  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On The Border
Posts: 5,567
Default

Originally Posted by mikefloyd View Post
And that's what happens when you have activist judges with an agenda.
That's what happens when you live in an far left agenda driven state.

Last edited by Beuford T. Justice; 03-15-2019 at 08:08 AM.
Beuford T. Justice is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:13 AM
  #19  
Admirals ClubCaptains Club Member Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lighthouse Point
Posts: 4,994
Default

CT is a disaster.
kinnakeettom likes this.
joe.giuliano is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:34 AM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suffolk, Va.
Posts: 16,977
Default

Originally Posted by Freeebird View Post
I read that article twice, and I didn't see anything specific about this alleged, "advertising angle". This is just a legal maneuver to try and find a legitimate reason to blame the gun, not the shooter.

[color=left=#404040]"The families' goal has always been to shed light on Remington's calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans' safety," said Josh Koshoff, a lawyer for the victims' families.

Court high-risk users? What constitutes a high-risk user?

Why does this stupid color crap show up whenever I copy and paste from something?[/color]
I know its NPR but it explains the advertising part. Same thing I heard on the news this mprning.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/70343...o-move-forward
fishingfun is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread