Court allows Sandy Hook families to sue Remington

Let’s see where this goes.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/manufac...es-11552579520

Manufacturer of AR-15 Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook Massacre, Court Rules
Connecticut Supreme Court allowed victims’ suit to move forward over its marketing of the gun

By Jacob Gershman and Cameron McWhirter
Updated March 14, 2019 6:31 p.m. ET

In a 4-3 ruling, the court overturned the dismissal of a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by families of victims killed in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The suit was brought against Remington Outdoor Co., the maker of the weapon Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people, most of them young children.

The ruling allows the plaintiffs to move forward with claims that Remington’s marketing campaigns violated Connecticut’s consumer-protection law, which prohibits advertising and marketing that is “immoral and unscrupulous.”

The plaintiffs alleged that Remington unlawfully promoted the rifle to young, civilian men as a weapon with awesome power and ideal for combat.

A representative for Remington didn’t respond to requests for comment. Remington had argued the claims were barred by a 2005 federal law that grants the gun industry expansive immunity from liability claims over gun violence. That law, however, has an exception, under which manufacturers may be liable for injuries resulting from violations of state laws dealing with the marketing of their products.

The trade association for the firearms industry called the ruling a disappointment. “The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the exception,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation said in a statement.

Legal experts said the outcome could have broad ramifications. The decision could give victims of other shootings a legal road map for establishing liability against an industry that has faced little legal threat for more than a decade.

“This ruling has basically blown a very large hole in federal immunity for firearms manufacturers in lawsuits against them that arise out of the criminal misuse of the weapons they sell,” said Georgia State University law professor Timothy Lytton, author of a book about gun litigation.

The plaintiffs might now also be able to use the lawsuit’s discovery process to pull the curtain back on Remington’s internal marketing strategy. In recent years, courts have largely thwarted such efforts.

Josh Koskoff, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, said Thursday’s decision was a “critical step” toward shedding light on “Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users.”

In its ruling, the court upheld the dismissal of several claims brought by the plaintiffs, finding them barred by the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. But the court found the marketing claim to fall outside the reach of the law.

“[T]here is no indication…that Congress intended to restrict the power of the states to regulate wrongful advertising, particularly advertising that encourages consumers to engage in egregious criminal conduct,” wrote Connecticut Justice Richard Palmer for the majority; Justice Palmer was nominated to the court by former Republican Gov. Lowell Weicker.

Barring an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the case now goes back to a trial court to determine the merits of the lawsuit’s wrongful marketing claims.

Lanza, who acquired a Bushmaster XM15-E2S from his mother, killed 20 school children and six educators in the shooting at the school on Dec. 14, 2012.

He shot himself to death as first responders arrived at the school.

AR-15-style rifles have been used in several mass shootings in recent years, including Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Texas, Parkland, Fla., and Pittsburgh.

First developed in the 1950s, AR-15-style rifles are light, gas-powered, semiautomatic weapons that can be fired rapidly with ease. The gun was marketed initially as a military weapon, and the military renamed it the M16, which can fire automatic and semiautomatic.

While no one keeps records of exactly how many AR-15 and similar rifles are sold in the U.S., the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated that from 1990 to 2016 more than 11.4 million were produced to be sold domestically.

Plaintiffs alleged that Remington’s marketing campaigns were geared toward young video-game playing, military-obsessed young men and linked the AR-15 to macho vigilantism and military-style insurrection.

The company, the lawsuit claims, touted the gun’s “military-proven performance” and declared it “the ultimate combat weapons system.”

“Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,” a lawyer for the plaintiffs told the Connecticut high court during oral arguments in November 2017.

Legal experts say the most controversial part of the decision is the judges’ interpretation of the 2005 immunity law.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, particularly after the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., the gun industry faced a wave of lawsuits from shooting victims and municipalities alleging criminal misuse of its products.

Gun groups who lobbied for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act trumpeted its passage as a death knell for such lawsuits.

But the Connecticut high court concluded that the immunity spelled out in the law wasn’t broad enough to throw out the Sandy Hook lawsuit.

Central in the dispute is an exception in the statute that says manufacturers can be liable for actions that violate state statutes “applicable to the sale or marketing of the product.”

The Connecticut Supreme Court said the immunity exception can cover a general consumer-protection law that’s not specifically about firearms.

Judges also rejected defendant arguments that the lawsuit was time-barred by statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they lacked a business relationship with Remington.

Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Robinson, nominated to the court by former Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy, wrote a dissenting opinion.

He said Congress intended for the exception in the 2005 law to cover state laws that “relate specifically to the sale and manufacture of firearms.”

Other states have consumer-protection laws like Connecticut’s. Mr. Lytton, the Georgia State University law professor, said the precedent in Connecticut could help victims of other shooting sprees persuade courts that the manufacturing, distribution, advertising and sales practices of firearms manufacturers constitute unfair trade practices.

Remington’s lawyers had argued that plaintiffs’ interpretation of the 2005 law would “severely undermine congressional intent.”

“The crimes that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School were horrific, and the losses suffered by the plaintiffs were immense,” the company argued in a brief. “But basic principles of law should not be discarded simply to serve the exigencies of particular cases.”

advertising constitutes unfair trade practices?


ludicrous! but then you're dealing with Connecticut...


its going to run into 1st amendment problems.

Adam Lanza didn't purchase the weapon; so, Remington's marketing strategy doesn't apply. Adam Lanza was never Remington's customer.

This is another fucked up bill that happen with a Republican, (Trump) on his watch. Does he care about any of the constitution?

Let’s see where this goes.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/manufac...es-11552579520

Manufacturer of AR-15 Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook Massacre, Court Rules
Connecticut Supreme Court allowed victims’ suit to move forward over its marketing of the gun

By Jacob Gershman and Cameron McWhirter
Updated March 14, 2019 6:31 p.m. ET

In a 4-3 ruling, the court overturned the dismissal of a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by families of victims killed in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The suit was brought against Remington Outdoor Co., the maker of the weapon Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people, most of them young children.

The ruling allows the plaintiffs to move forward with claims that Remington’s marketing campaigns violated Connecticut’s consumer-protection law, which prohibits advertising and marketing that is “immoral and unscrupulous.”

The plaintiffs alleged that Remington unlawfully promoted the rifle to young, civilian men as a weapon with awesome power and ideal for combat.

A representative for Remington didn’t respond to requests for comment. Remington had argued the claims were barred by a 2005 federal law that grants the gun industry expansive immunity from liability claims over gun violence. That law, however, has an exception, under which manufacturers may be liable for injuries resulting from violations of state laws dealing with the marketing of their products.

The trade association for the firearms industry called the ruling a disappointment. “The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the exception,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation said in a statement.

Legal experts said the outcome could have broad ramifications. The decision could give victims of other shootings a legal road map for establishing liability against an industry that has faced little legal threat for more than a decade.

“This ruling has basically blown a very large hole in federal immunity for firearms manufacturers in lawsuits against them that arise out of the criminal misuse of the weapons they sell,” said Georgia State University law professor Timothy Lytton, author of a book about gun litigation.

The plaintiffs might now also be able to use the lawsuit’s discovery process to pull the curtain back on Remington’s internal marketing strategy. In recent years, courts have largely thwarted such efforts.

Josh Koskoff, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, said Thursday’s decision was a “critical step” toward shedding light on “Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users.”

In its ruling, the court upheld the dismissal of several claims brought by the plaintiffs, finding them barred by the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. But the court found the marketing claim to fall outside the reach of the law.

“[T]here is no indication…that Congress intended to restrict the power of the states to regulate wrongful advertising, particularly advertising that encourages consumers to engage in egregious criminal conduct,” wrote Connecticut Justice Richard Palmer for the majority; Justice Palmer was nominated to the court by former Republican Gov. Lowell Weicker.

Barring an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the case now goes back to a trial court to determine the merits of the lawsuit’s wrongful marketing claims.

Lanza, who acquired a Bushmaster XM15-E2S from his mother, killed 20 school children and six educators in the shooting at the school on Dec. 14, 2012.

He shot himself to death as first responders arrived at the school.

AR-15-style rifles have been used in several mass shootings in recent years, including Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Texas, Parkland, Fla., and Pittsburgh.

First developed in the 1950s, AR-15-style rifles are light, gas-powered, semiautomatic weapons that can be fired rapidly with ease. The gun was marketed initially as a military weapon, and the military renamed it the M16, which can fire automatic and semiautomatic.

While no one keeps records of exactly how many AR-15 and similar rifles are sold in the U.S., the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated that from 1990 to 2016 more than 11.4 million were produced to be sold domestically.

Plaintiffs alleged that Remington’s marketing campaigns were geared toward young video-game playing, military-obsessed young men and linked the AR-15 to macho vigilantism and military-style insurrection.

The company, the lawsuit claims, touted the gun’s “military-proven performance” and declared it “the ultimate combat weapons system.”

“Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,” a lawyer for the plaintiffs told the Connecticut high court during oral arguments in November 2017.

Legal experts say the most controversial part of the decision is the judges’ interpretation of the 2005 immunity law.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, particularly after the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., the gun industry faced a wave of lawsuits from shooting victims and municipalities alleging criminal misuse of its products.

Gun groups who lobbied for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act trumpeted its passage as a death knell for such lawsuits.

But the Connecticut high court concluded that the immunity spelled out in the law wasn’t broad enough to throw out the Sandy Hook lawsuit.

Central in the dispute is an exception in the statute that says manufacturers can be liable for actions that violate state statutes “applicable to the sale or marketing of the product.”

The Connecticut Supreme Court said the immunity exception can cover a general consumer-protection law that’s not specifically about firearms.

Judges also rejected defendant arguments that the lawsuit was time-barred by statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they lacked a business relationship with Remington.

Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Robinson, nominated to the court by former Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy, wrote a dissenting opinion.

He said Congress intended for the exception in the 2005 law to cover state laws that “relate specifically to the sale and manufacture of firearms.”

Other states have consumer-protection laws like Connecticut’s. Mr. Lytton, the Georgia State University law professor, said the precedent in Connecticut could help victims of other shooting sprees persuade courts that the manufacturing, distribution, advertising and sales practices of firearms manufacturers constitute unfair trade practices.

Remington’s lawyers had argued that plaintiffs’ interpretation of the 2005 law would “severely undermine congressional intent.”

“The crimes that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School were horrific, and the losses suffered by the plaintiffs were immense,” the company argued in a brief. “But basic principles of law should not be discarded simply to serve the exigencies of particular cases.” Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Maybe your next headline...
Man runs over and kills wife with car...courts rules woman's family can file suit against FORD!!
Man cuts face with razor and and bleeds to death...court rules man's family can file suit against Schick!!
Sounds like a nice racket in the making...

We are fooling ourselves if we keep our heads in the sand and refuse to believe that firearms are in a very specific category. They are not hair dryers, not power tools, not automobiles. The primary purpose of firearms, going back to the time that they were invented, was to kill living things.

I am a lifetime NRA member. I am an adamant shooter. Firearm ownership and use demands the utmost in responsibility, because always remember, it's primary purpose is to take life.

If a court does find that Remington's advertisements were affective to the point that it compels little shits like these "gamers" to go out and kill innocent people, then a jury just might find them liable.

I doubt it would survive appeal, but that's another topic.

I'm not sure where the culpability of the producers of these ultra violent video games comes into play, but if playing these games compells a little turd to climb out of the basement and kill living human beings, then perhaps they are just as liable.

The violent games made him do it, the AR-15 gave him the capability.

Which is worse?

We are fooling ourselves if we keep our heads in the sand and refuse to believe that firearms are in a very specific category. They are not hair dryers, not power tools, not automobiles. The primary purpose of firearms, going back to the time that they were invented, was to kill living things.

I am a lifetime NRA member. I am an adamant shooter. Firearm ownership and use demands the utmost in responsibility, because always remember, it's primary purpose is to take life.

If a court does find that Remington's advertisements were affective to the point that it compels little shits like these "gamers" to go out and kill innocent people, then a jury just might find them liable.

I doubt it would survive appeal, but that's another topic.

I'm not sure where the culpability of the producers of these ultra violent video games comes into play, but if playing these games compells a little turd to climb out of the basement and kill living human beings, then perhaps they are just as liable.

The violent games made him do it, the AR-15 gave him the capability.

Which is worse? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Damn Jackie. I like you Brother. You are one of the most sensible people in here. You really hit the nail on the head

Maybe your next headline...
Man runs over and kills wife with car...courts rules woman's family can file suit against FORD!!
Man cuts face with razor and and bleeds to death...court rules man's family can file suit against Schick!!
Sounds like a nice racket in the making... Originally Posted by bb1961

Jackie? CB, Lama is that you? Wow a post I TOTALLY agree with.
Good job bb.

PS: Borrowed from the Lama. "You're still a Jerk"

The ruling allows the plaintiffs to move forward with claims that Remington’s marketing campaigns violated Connecticut’s consumer-protection law, which prohibits advertising and marketing that is “immoral and unscrupulous.”

where does this put planned parenthood

against who's morals?

The ruling allows the plaintiffs to move forward with claims that Remington’s marketing campaigns violated Connecticut’s consumer-protection law, which prohibits advertising and marketing that is “immoral and unscrupulous.”

where does this put planned parenthood

against who's morals? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Great post. This is going to be a good day. You right wing loons are talking sense today. Damn!

Im going to buy a lottery ticket. Is today the day IB, Lusty, Waco says something sensible? Is Christ coming today?

Adam Lanza didn't purchase the weapon; so, Remington's marketing strategy doesn't apply. Adam Lanza was never Remington's customer. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hadn't thought of it like that.

That does seem to contradict the reasoning behind the courts ruling.

If his mother only owned a handgun, my guess is that is what he would have used to kill people. He used the AR-15 out of convenience, not because it was marketed a certain way.


Also wouldn't the news media be just as liable? They've done more to portray the weapon as inherently dangerous than any gun manufacturer.

So is the feeling here that the gun companies should not bear any responsibility for the marketing of their WMDs?

The Ridiculous Hypocrisy going after capitalism and back door attempt at gun control ,,, maybe your next headline...
Man runs over and kills wife with car...courts rules woman's family can file suit against FORD!!
Man cuts face with razor and and bleeds to death...court rules man's family can file suit against Schick!!
Sounds like a nice racket in the making.
The liberal socialist loons will try everything they can think of the destroy this country

no!

this is a misdirected and misguided attempt to collect cash.

I don't see how they can prove marketing malfeasance against the gun company. This isn't like the Tobacco wars where they could prove causation between smoking and marketing.

the kid did not buy or own the weapon. he stole it from his parents.

eventually the courts will dismiss it.

So is the feeling here that the gun companies should not bear any responsibility for the marketing of their WMDs? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your bias is showing. WMD's? Firearms are tools like many other products. Many products can be used to kill multiple people and we're often lucky that the nutjobs just haven't figured it out. Vehicles can be driven into crowds anywhere....are they WMDs? Chemicals can be used directly or mixed in ways to make them much more dangerous....are they WMDs? Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it wont.


Firearms are unique....but I disagree with the reasoning above. The reason I see they are unique is that we are guaranteed a right to keep and bear them by the US Constitution. Why did the founders write that in....because they had just had a war with the most powerful nation on Earth and they had to do it with the muskets and rifles that their own people had. They used whatever they had on hand to fight off tyranny. And now, because television makes the events more sensational, people are losing their minds thinking that people are being mowed down by guns around every corner when in fact, gun violence is way down. And look at history. What has happened wherever guns have been taken away from the populace....tyranny. Venezuela's a good current example. They had their guns taken away 10 years ago...how's that working out for them. What can they do to stand up to the government that prevents food donations into the country while their people starve? People who want to take away guns do so in order to have more power over the populace. It's happened all over the world and the results are always the same. Guns are unique because they keep us free.



The basic fact is, that people need to be held accountable for their own actions. You can't blame the spoon for your being fat....it was your choice to shovel so much food in your body. You can't hold car manufacturers responsible because of drunk driving deaths...hell, we don't even let you hold the booze manufacturers or the bars responsible for that. Are there exceptions....sure....tobacco lied about the consequences of smoking. They're not responsible for you smoking but they are responsible for telling you it was much safer than it actually is. If Remington was selling the guns as non-lethal and then they were used to kill....you might have an argument. But guns are designed to kill. Everyone knows that. They didn't lie and they didn't deceive. They just sold a product that we are guaranteed permission to purchase by the founding document of the country. Suing them is pointless and foolish.