Sandy Hook.

kenbro

Well-Known Member
Read somewhere a Judge in USA has given parents permission to sue Remington because one of their AR15 rifles was used by the Sandy Hook School killer.
If successful, that could have far reaching consequences!
Ken.
 

kes

Well-Known Member
Utter nonsense - when you buy a US firearm thee days it says something like e.g Smith and Wesson are not responsible for the use of this weapon .......
in an attempt to head off nonsensical legal arguments such as the gun fired my relative, or if you had not invented this gun, murders would not happen.
Much as I feel for those who lost people at this shooting, there is a strangeness in the US about stuff like this. One of their sniper rifles, defence of the country etc.,is a Remington, can you expect to have your cake and eat it ?.
 

waterford103

Well-Known Member
Utter nonsense - when you buy a US firearm thee days it says something like e.g Smith and Wesson are not responsible for the use of this weapon .......
in an attempt to head off nonsensical legal arguments such as the gun fired my relative, or if you had not invented this gun, murders would not happen.
Much as I feel for those who lost people at this shooting, there is a strangeness in the US about stuff like this. One of their sniper rifles, defence of the country etc.,is a Remington, can you expect to have your cake and eat it ?.
Since when has common sense had any input into legal proceedings ? Any liberal / socialist /communist lawyer would try to make millions for that sort of rubbish ? Where would it end , kids eating Tide tablets etc etc .
 

potshotpat

Well-Known Member
I remember the time Mr Ryan went off on his spree, speaking to a very well educated College Lecturer. He came out with the very matter of fact statement saying that if more of the locals had Firearms, he could have been stopped sooner rather than later.
 

potshotpat

Well-Known Member
I remember the time Mr Ryan went off on his spree, speaking to a very well educated College Lecturer. He came out with the very matter of fact statement saying that if more of the locals had Firearms, he could have been stopped sooner rather than later.
Sorry this doesn't quite read correctly, but I hope you get my drift.:tiphat:
 

johngryphon

Well-Known Member
It's been tried before, it goes no where. Just a way for a slime ball lawyer to make money.

That sums it up,now of course we could further this by adding knives to the list or what about gas ovens... IE my missus used our gas oven to kill herself so I will now have to sue the manufacturer as it was their fault for selling it to me.
 

Swedish

Well-Known Member
maybe I should sue my favourite beer because of my beer gut...
Pick a number and get in line!

On a serious note though, reading about the case it would seem that the lawyers are hanging their hats on the point (in their minds) that the manufacturers deliberately targeted a risky demographic in order to increase their profits and that is the basis for the ruling. Grim times ahead...
 

Yorkie

Well-Known Member
It's been tried before, it goes no where. Just a way for a slime ball lawyer to make money.
Hi GOW.
How is this being allowed to happen in the first place? Am I correct in thinking Federal Law forbids a manufacturer being held accountable for misuse of a product?
 

Hunter5567

Well-Known Member
It's a state judge that's saying they can sue even though there is a federal law that manufacturers cannot be sued for misuse of their products. This will get struck down. It would open tort to any manufacturer of any product for any misuse of said product, even accidental. Little brother Johnny sprays little sister Suzy in the eyes with a Raid can and the manufactuerer gets sued.
 

Southern

Well-Known Member
Product liability is an area of the law which has totally degenerated since 1970, and undone 400 years of tort law.

This case was tossed out by the trial judge and the state Court of Appeals. Now that state Supreme Court has reversed both those courts, who were following the law, and said the lawsuit can proceed. The plaintiffs are claiming that the misuse of the firearm, which was stolen after its owner was murdered, is the result of marketing by Remington. Remember that the killer was too young to purchase a rifle of any kind, had threatened to blow up and shoot up the school, and and had made those threats to a therapist, who failed to report them to the police, as required by law and professional ethics.
 

starr shot

Well-Known Member
Slightly off the thread a few years ago I had somebody spin out in a car hit me head on. Their insurance company wanted me to accept part blame. The reason being that had I not been there she wouldn’t have collided with me.My reply was speak to Ford motor company as if they hadn’t built the Transit I was in and the Escort she was driving Would it have happened.Insurance person said no now your just being silly,you started it was my reply.
 

flying felix

Well-Known Member
I would like to see them sue Remington, lose and Remington counter sue for costs and loss of business. Completely destroying the money grabbing opertunists.
 

deeangeo

Well-Known Member
Don’t Sturm Ruger have a denial of resposibility engraved on their firearms?
I seem to recall seeing one on a revolver a long time ago.
Personally, I’ve never owned a Ruger firearm, so can’t be sure of the above.
 

johngryphon

Well-Known Member
I ran out of schite paper so I used up an old telephone page or two and the newsprint made my botty red and sore,now if I cant sue the phone book printers could I sue the ink manufacturers ha ha.
 

Sonicdmb73

Well-Known Member
I ran out of schite paper so I used up an old telephone page or two and the newsprint made my botty red and sore,now if I cant sue the phone book printers could I sue the ink manufacturers ha ha.
Only if you’re prepared to wave your bare backside about in court to prove the damage :norty:
 

8x57

Distinguished Member
Don’t Sturm Ruger have a denial of resposibility engraved on their firearms?
I seem to recall seeing one on a revolver a long time ago.
Personally, I’ve never owned a Ruger firearm, so can’t be sure of the above.
Most American manufacturers of modern firearms have a disclaimer engraved on the gun directing you to the user safety manual. Totally disfigures the firearm and one reason why I won't buy a gun disfigured in such a way.
 

Top