Remington vs Sandy Hook settlement...Remington pays

[DaleA]

the first instance in the United States of a gun manufacturer accepting liability for a mass shooting.

Remington and the Sandy Hook families have reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount of money rumored to be $73 million.

Remington was being sued for the way they advertised the Bushmaster AR style rifle.

Here's a link to the article, the article says this is an ongoing story and more details will be available later:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sa...edgdhp&pc=U531

[seanc]

I don't understand this at all except LAWYERS! looking to avoid a possibly bigger jury award based on the blood of so many innocent lives. The insane killer didn't buy the gun, so how was Remington's marketing any more responsible than the video game the nut was obsessed with?

[DaleA]

Here's another article with a video from the lawyer for the Sandy Hook folk and comments allowed from the general public.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sa...=U531#comments

[44 AMP]

I would like to point out something the news is ignoring...

REMINGTON doesn't exist anymore. Remington isn't paying a penny to anyone, they aren't around to do so.

LAWYERS holding control of former Remington assets are the ones who have decided to pay. Not Remington.

The murderer is long dead, and had no assets to begin with. One of the families, said "it was never about the money" but to me, that's BS for public consumption. If its not about the money, why sue FOR MONEY???

This is about lawyers and bean counters doing a cost/benefit analysis on the money they are holding, without any need or requirement to consider the effect of their decision on the firearms industry or its marketing in general. Who may get sued, and for what later on down the road is of no concern to them I suspect, they've decided to settle no doubt seeing that as the cheapest way out.

No doubt they feel this is the best way to serve their client's interests, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent (though not in law) and I would, personally, fight this tooth and nail on principle alone.

NO manufacturer is, or should be held responsible for the criminal actions of any third party with stolen property.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I would like to point out something the news is ignoring...

REMINGTON doesn't exist anymore. Remington isn't paying a penny to anyone, they aren't around to do so.

LAWYERS holding control of former Remington assets are the ones who have decided to pay. Not Remington.

My guess it's not even whoever controls any assets of the now-former Remington -- it's the insurance company for the now-former Remington. At some point they decided it would be cheaper to pay than to fight and risk higher losses. It still comes down to bean counters, but it's the insurance company's bean counters.

I have an example (non-firearms related, but insurance company related) of just how bad it gets. A number of years ago I was a project manager for a middling-sized AE (architecture and engineering) firm. Among our clients was a realty company that owned a shopping mall. One day some roofers were repairing a section of the mall's roof and they started a fire. One of the volunteer firemen showed up drunk, fell off a ladder and [allegedly] injured himself.

AFTER the fire, our firm was hired to design repairs to the damaged roof. We did so, the roof was properly repaired, and everyone went home. Except the drunk fireman ... who went to his friendly local ambulance chasing attorney, who thereupon sued everyone in sight on behalf of his client. The lawsuit included US -- and we weren't involved in any way until after the fire and after the [alleged] injury.

We turned the claim over to our professional liability insurance carrier to defend -- and they promptly told the boss that they wanted to settle. He explained that we had NO involvement, that we weren't hired until after the incident -- they still wanted to settle, because it was cheaper. (Of course it was -- it the insurance company had to pay out on a claim against us, our premiums would have skyrocketed for a number of years.)

Ultimately (and rather bizarrely), the boss actually had to sue his own insurance company to force them to defend the claim. Once that happened, we were immediately removed from the lawsuit. But no thanks to the insurance company and their bean counter lawyers. They actually wanted to settle a completely meritless claim.

So consider that when reflecting on the Remington settlement.

[HighDesert]

So, assuming it’s now a free for all to sue every manufacturer till they no longer exist and thus no need to worry about the 2A getting in the way anymore?

[natman]

Originally Posted by HighDesert

So, assuming it’s now a free for all to sue every manufacturer till they no longer exist and thus no need to worry about the 2A getting in the way anymore?

In a word, yes.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is designed to prevent that, which is why some people are so eager to repeal it.

[DaleA]

So, assuming it’s now a free for all to sue every manufacturer till they no longer exist and thus no need to worry about the 2A getting in the way anymore?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one in this forum. I CERTAINLY will bow out and recommend we get some advice from several REAL legal experts that regularly contribute to this forum.

That said, I guess I'd go with the old saying that anybody CAN sue anyone for anything but your chances of winning vary.

This case was tossed out by a Connecticut judge but on appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court the suit was reinstated. The case went to the Supreme Court which decided not to hear the case so the case was set to go forward and then Remington (bankrupt Remington) and the families settled.

As others have mentioned:
There was no court ruling on the case.

1. Had the case gone to trial Remington might have won.
2. Other suits against other companies in other states might not get past the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
3. The Remington/Sandy Hook lawsuit was about the way Remington marketed the gun, that is, the advertising they used. (Which, IMhO, is just plain goofy/idiotic/disingenuous/ whatever.)

Once again, I invite those with real legal knowledge to chime in.

[Metal god]

I thought someone/company bought Remington ??? I know PSA bought there ammunition division of the company and Ruger bought Marlin from Remington . Did anyone actually buy the firearms division of the company ? If so maybe they are just washing there hands of said problem by settling ??

[FrankenMauser]

The "Remington" responsible for the lawsuit was dissolved in court. That company no longer exists.
The company that now owns "Remington" is a separate entity and cannot be held liable for legal matters prior to the acquisition. Such was explicitly stated in the court proceedings.
No one would have bought "Remington" if that were not the case.

[Metal god]

Good point .

[Tom Servo]

the first instance in the United States of a gun manufacturer accepting liability for a mass shooting.

They did not accept or admit liability. They settled out of court with no such finding. That's the whole point.

Corporations settle all the time, even if they're not in the wrong. Sometimes, it's the easiest way to make a nagging problem go away.

Chances are, one the various parties in charge of splitting up Remington just wanted to get out from under this whole mess. It doesn't set any sort of precedent, nor does it threaten the PLCAA.

[thallub]

Remington had nothing to due with the insurance award. Remington went extinct in 2020.

The Remington Outdoors company was dissolved in 2020. Company assets were auctioned off, leaving the insurance company holding the bag.

Auction winners:

Vista Outdoor Inc.: the Lonoke ammunition business and certain IP assets.

Roundhill Group LLC: the non-Marlin firearms business

Sierra Bullets LLC: the Barnes ammunition business

Sturm, Ruger & Co.: the Marlin firearms business

JJE Capital Holdings LLC: the DPMS, H&R, Stormlake, AAC and Parker brands
Franklin Armory Holdings Inc.: the Bushmaster brand and some related assets

Sportsman's Warehouse Inc.: the Tapco brands

Dakota Arms: Parkwest Arms

[Aguila Blanca]

Also, this case was a bit unique with respect to the PLCAA in that the lawsuit wasn't about the firearm -- it was about the way Remington advertised the firearm, and the plaintiffs used that nuance to make an end run around the PLCAA. That was the issue when the first Connecticut judge dismissed the case, and then the Connecticut Supreme Court revived it.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Also, this case was a bit unique with respect to the PLCAA in that the lawsuit wasn't about the firearm -- it was about the way Remington advertised the firearm, and the plaintiffs used that nuance to make an end run around the PLCAA. That was the issue when the first Connecticut judge dismissed the case, and then the Connecticut Supreme Court revived it.

The main problem with that is now future lawsuits will be about marketing.

[Metal god]

What I don’t understand is how the marketing is relevant . I can’t imagine the commercial or add said best firearm for killing small school children . I would think to claim the marketing contributed to the crime one would have to prove the killer relied on the marketing as to why he used that particular tool . In this case the mother bought the Firarm and the killer murdered the owner of the firearm ( his own mother ) and stole the firearmm to use for the crime . Therefore the claim the marketing is at fault would also have to conclude the mother bought the firearm to be used in a crime based on the marketing ?

My point , doesn’t the marketing have to have a direct relevance to the crime or the theory doesn’t have standing shall we say ???

Furthermore what kind of precedent does this is set for other non-Firearms related marketing and possible liable lawsuits . I remember back in the 80s and 90s several artist (musical) in particular were constantly being sued because of listeners interpreted their songs in a way not intended . The courts always ruled in favor of the artist or at least most of the time I can’t say always . Why isn’t this the same idea if the marketing doesn’t go directly to the criminal act how do they have a claim , if there’s any ambiguity there must be relief in favor of the marketer ???

[KyJim]

I ran across a news article that said the insurers paid the maximum amount of their exposure---the entire $73 million paid to the families. Don't have the link handy.

[MarkCO]

Remington (that was sued) does not exist, there was no verdict, there was no admission of liability, Remington did not even pay. The insurance carriers paid. This amount to nothing concrete in any manner except perception. So sad so many 2A advocates are wringing their hands and being Chicken Littles.

[mehavey]

So sad so many 2A advocates are wringing their hands and being Chicken Littles.

The Gentle Reader could care less about Remington.

The problem is now the precedent set of destroying the manufacturer
of any legal product through incessant civil suit -- based not on
law, but on nebulous "perception" of how that product is presented.

[Spats McGee]

One of the factors that I suspect went into making the decision to settle is what's known as "cost of defense." We typically start from a point where each side is expected to pay its own attorneys' fees. If there's a statute awarding attorneys' fees (and possibly costs) to the prevailing party, that has to be taken into account, as well. For example, if someone sues me for $1M, and the anticipated cost of defense is >$1M, it may make sense to settle, particularly if the plaintiff will accept less, and/or if there's no admission of wrongdoing or liability in the settlement agreement.

Also, the lawyers involved in making those decisions may also look at how the case may affect future law. If the facts are bad for my client, and especially if I have other similar clients, I have to consider not only how a case might affect this particular client, but also the similar clients. For example, I used to work for a quasi-governmental agency that represented a lot of police officers. When we looked at a case, we had to consider the guy being sued in the instant case, as well as what impact his case might have on future qualified immunity cases.

[thallub]

This rather dumb promotion by Bushmaster started the ball rolling:

https://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/bus...#axzz7L6H3cICk

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by mehavey

The problem is now the precedent set of destroying the manufacturer
of any legal product through incessant civil suit -- based not on
law, but on nebulous "perception" of how that product is presented.

Explain how a pre-trial settlement is legal "precedent". Here is the definition...b. Law A judicial decision that is binding on other equal or lower courts in the same jurisdiction as to its conclusion on a point of law, and may also be persuasive to courts in other jurisdictions, in subsequent cases involving sufficiently similar facts.

I'd say "I'll wait", but you can't, so there is that.

[mehavey]

Explain how a pre-trial settlement is legal "precedent". Here is the definition...b. Law A judicial decision that is binding on other equal or lower courts in the same jurisdiction as to its conclusion on a point of law, and may also be persuasive to courts in other jurisdictions, in subsequent cases involving sufficiently similar facts.

I'd say "I'll wait", but you can't, so there is that.

Well, I'm glad the Gentle Reader.... "waited."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In October 2016, a Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of some victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against the manufacturer (Remington), the wholesale distributor, and the retailer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting. Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the suit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The families sued Remington in 2014, alleging it should be held partially responsible for the shooting because of its marketing strategy. A 2005 federal law protects many gun manufacturers from wrongful death lawsuits brought by family members -- but the marketing argument was a new approach.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But even that law had a couple of exceptions, including an exception saying that, if a gun manufacturer, for example, was found to have engaged in activity that are illegal, they could be subject to prosecution.
And the Connecticut state court ruled that this could proceed, this lawsuit could proceed, under that exception in the federal law. And now, of course, the Supreme Court has said that the lawsuit in Connecticut can go ahead, by not hearing the case appeal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ALBANY, N.Y. — Updated Nov. 2, 2021New York State lawmakers passed legislation on Tuesday intended to allow civil lawsuits to be brought against firearm manufacturers and dealers, an attempt to circumvent the broad immunity gun companies currently enjoy under federal law.

The bill, passed by the Democratic-controlled State Legislature, is the first of its kind in the nation to specifically classify the illegal or improper marketing or sale of guns as a nuisance — a technical classification that state lawmakers say would open the gun industry to civil liability suits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remington becomes first gun maker held liable for mass shooting after $73m settlement with Sandy Hook families. The lawsuit claimed Remington directed its marketing of the rifles towards young men
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Gentle Reader is invited to respond to how the Sandy Hook invocation of "marketing" -- and both the court and legislative actions that immediately followed ("suit" if you will) is not clear evidence of precedent set... and floodgates opened.
.
.
.
I will, of course... "wait."


.

[MarkCO]

Remington becomes first gun maker held liable for

is absolutely false. But if you believe what you wrote, copied or otherwise, there is no reason to look at the facts again, as you will just write what you believe again. Good day.

[mehavey]

I'll stick with what I wrote (and believe)
Good Night.