As America’s gun crisis shows no sign of abating, there is some hope for reducing the number of mass shootings and killings. The emerging wave of lawsuits against gun makers echoes previous successes against the car industry, opioid companies and big tobacco.
One of these is not like the others…
The door was effectively opened for gun litigation last year, when the families of five adults and four children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting settled with Remington, which manufactured the AR-15 style rifle used in the massacre, for $73m.
Ah yes, the Call of Duty inspired the shooter to use an AR-15 legal argument (I wish I was joking)
The families argued that Remington had violated a Connecticut trade law by irresponsibly marketing its AR-15 Bushmaster rifle to young, high-risk males, through militaristic marketing campaigns and first-person shooter video games – a similar tactic is seen in the Indianapolis lawsuit.
the sandy hook case is not indicative of anything. remington settled not because they were liable, but because they were going through bankruptcy. getting the settlement done before the bankruptcy would mean the settlement would be discharged also, not pay a fucking dime. there was no admission of liability, and the people didn't get paid because it was discharged in bankruptcy.
the lawyers accepted it knowing this, because they wanted this misleading soundbite that they won against a gun manufacturer. if remington litigated it, first, there's no area of products liability where a manufacturer is liable for the criminal misconduct or misuse of its product, and second, federal law explicitly declares this for multiple industries, including firearms.
One of these is not like the others…
Ah yes, the Call of Duty inspired the shooter to use an AR-15 legal argument (I wish I was joking)
VIDEO GAMES MADE ME DO IT!
the sandy hook case is not indicative of anything. remington settled not because they were liable, but because they were going through bankruptcy. getting the settlement done before the bankruptcy would mean the settlement would be discharged also, not pay a fucking dime. there was no admission of liability, and the people didn't get paid because it was discharged in bankruptcy.
the lawyers accepted it knowing this, because they wanted this misleading soundbite that they won against a gun manufacturer. if remington litigated it, first, there's no area of products liability where a manufacturer is liable for the criminal misconduct or misuse of its product, and second, federal law explicitly declares this for multiple industries, including firearms.