Bud's being sued for Highland Park shooting

[DaleA]

in late September 2022, Jason and Keely Roberts filed a lawsuit against Bud's Gun Shop as well as Smith & Wesson Brands [manufacturer of the gun] and Red Dot Arms LLC. [the FFL that Bud's shipped the gun to and the ones that processed the 4473 for the shooter.]

The young son of Jason and Keely was paralyzed in the Highland Park shooting and they are suing the above.

Highland Park doesn't allow residents to acquire or possess assault weapons.

both gun shops [Bud's and Red Dot Arms] knew that Crimo's address prohibited him from owning the weapon.

From the article it is not clear (to me anyway) why S&W is named in the suit even though the shooter used a Smith & Wesson M&P15.

Shades of the Sandy Hook/Remington suit that was settled by the lawyers while Remington was in bankruptcy proceedings.

The article is here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...c1f3bcc25eaebc

[44 AMP]

In the USA one is allowed to sue almost anyone over almost anything. I suspect they are casting the broadest net possible and hoping to find a sympathetic jury who will look at who has the deepest pockets and not at actual justice, which rarely pays very well.
I suspect that their lawyers will get paid, win or lose....

[Tom Servo]

Oh, this is awful. Here's a link to the law firm bringing the suit. They need to be formally reprimanded for this.

You can download the lawsuit on that page. It names the family members, not the law firm, as the plaintiffs. When this case fails, which it will under the PLCAA, those people will be on the hook for defendants' legal bills.

The Brady Campaign did this when they tried to sue Lucky Gunner over the Aurora movie theater shooting in 2015. They claimed the publicity, but the actual plaintiffs were Lonnie and Sandy Phillips, parents of one of the victims.

Senior District Judge Richard Matsch threw the case out since it violated the PLCAA. Considering the lawsuit frivolous, he ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s legal fees. The bill was around $230,000.

The Brady Center didn't want to be on the hook for that, so they dumped it in the Phillips’ lap.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

The Brady Campaign did this when they tried to sue Lucky Gunner over the Aurora movie theater shooting in 2015. They claimed the publicity, but the actual plaintiffs were Lonnie and Sandy Phillips, parents of one of the victims.

Senior District Judge Richard Matsch threw the case out since it violated the PLCAA. Considering the lawsuit frivolous, he ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s legal fees. The bill was around $230,000.

The Brady Center didn't want to be on the hook for that, so they dumped it in the Phillips’ lap.

The Phillipses whined multiple times about how no other industry has such "special protections," but I'll bet if the family of a person who was killed by a drunken driver were to sue the car dealer who sold him the car, and the manufacturer who made the car, that would get tossed out of court as frivolous, too.

[dogtown tom]

Tom Servo Oh, this is awful. Here's a link to the law firm bringing the suit. They need to be formally reprimanded for this.

You can download the lawsuit on that page. It names the family members, not the law firm, as the plaintiffs. When this case fails, which it will under the PLCAA, those people will be on the hook for defendants' legal bills.

That's literally how every civil suit is filed.
The aggrieved party (plaintiff) hires an attorney to represent them. Im not sure why you think the law firm needs to be reprimanded.

If the PLCAA worked as it was written then Remington would not have settled when they were sued.

[natman]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

That's literally how every civil suit is filed.
The aggrieved party (plaintiff) hires an attorney to represent them. Im not sure why you think the law firm needs to be reprimanded.

The law firm should have strongly advised the family that their lawsuit was frivolous and would likely result in them being liable for the legal fees of both sides.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

If the PLCAA worked as it was written then Remington would not have settled when they were sued.

The plaintiffs in the Remington lawsuit found a way around the PLCAA by filing their lawsuit in Connecticut, under state law rather than federal law, and under s state statute that addressed deceptive marketing practices. Not even the PLCAA provides protection against deceptive marketing -- nor (IMHO) should it.

[Tom Servo]

If the PLCAA worked as it was written then Remington would not have settled when they were sued.

The PLCAA wasn't really weighed in this case. Vista Outdoors purchased Remington at a low point, and they settled just to get out from under the cloud of the lawsuit.

[dogtown tom]

natman

The law firm should have strongly advised the family that their lawsuit was frivolous and would likely result in them being liable for the legal fees of both sides.

What makes you think the law firm didn't make them aware of their liability?

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca

The plaintiffs in the Remington lawsuit found a way around the PLCAA by filing their lawsuit in Connecticut, under state law rather than federal law, and under s state statute that addressed deceptive marketing practices. Not even the PLCAA provides protection against deceptive marketing -- nor (IMHO) should it.

Federal law trumps state law.
But the PLCAA wasn't used because Rems lawyers chose to settle.

[dogtown tom]

Tom Servo

The PLCAA wasn't really weighed in this case.

It was, the Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed the claim citing the PLCAA, but allowed the suit's wrongful marketing claim could proceed under Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Law.

Rather than continuing to litigate, Remington's bankruptcy lawyers settled.

Vista Outdoors purchased Remington at a low point, and they settled just to get out from under the cloud of the lawsuit.

Vista Outdoors had nothing to do with the lawsuit. And Vista didn't buy Remington at a low point, they bought when the federal court ordered assets sold at bankruptcy auction. Vista only owns the brand name "Remington" and an ammunition plant.

[44 AMP]

I know it looks that way, and the press made it seem like that was what happened, but it simply isn't true.

REMINGTON DID NOT SETTLE OUT OF COURT!!!

Remington did not exist when the settlement was reached!

Remington was out of business, gone, and its assets were sold, THEN the legal firm handling Remington's account settled out of court as there was nothing but expense to be gained for clients who no longer even existed.

Imagine if you are being sued, and you pass away. Then your estate's executor settles out of court. And then the press reports that YOU settled out of court. Not that your estate settled, or that your lawyer's settled or even bothered to include the information that YOU were dead.

It was a convoluted mess. The PLCAA never entered into it directly. As mentioned, the suit was about "deceptive advertising" under a CT law. Not about the gun, or the maker (Bushmaster, then owned by Remington) being defective or anything else.

The case was tossed out by the judge, who determined it had no merit. They appealed, and a different judge allowed the case to proceed, essentially stating that they deserved their day in court and if the case had no merit, that would be determined in court.

Before the case got to court, Remington ceased to exist, and their "estate" settled. The press, and the other anti's touted this as a tremendous "victory" as a major gun maker was "brought to its knees" and forced to pay. It was, "what we in the Royal Navy call.. a LIE."

The PLCAA was not involved, and does work as designed, protecting gun makers and sellers from BS lawsuits over their products. It does NOT protect them from being sued for a defective product, just like any other business in this country, despite the fact that the press omits that information, and just touts that the law protects gun makers from being sued (at all), which is, of course, yet another lie.

[mehavey]

It was, "what we in the Royal Navy call.. a LIE."

. . . study published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review indicates that, contrary to accepted knowledge,
belief in all statements, be they plausible or implausible, increases w/ repetition.... [and]
even patent lies may slowly become more credible, provided enough repetition.

We shall see on this new one: Whether rule of actual Law in fact wins the day, or fear now of the unknown/easiest goes to settling.

That may not be de jure precedent . . .
but de facto carries a lot of future sway.

[Nathan]

Why would lawyers settle for a deceased entity. Was any payment collected? Or was that just made to seem by the news?

[mehavey]

Yes.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/nin...ms-2022-02-15/

The details, definitions, and "legal niceties" don't matter.
There's self-inflicted blood now in the water.
Chum....

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Why would lawyers settle for a deceased entity. Was any payment collected? Or was that just made to seem by the news?

Because the lawyers didn't work for "the deceased entity," they worked for the insurance company that had insured the now-defunct corporate entity. And insurance is all about the bottom line. If an insurance company thinks it will be cheaper to settle and pay something rather than litigate a risky case -- they'll settle every time. I've seen it from the perspective on an insured -- once in my checkered past the firm I worked for was sued over an injury that occurred before we had even been hired to look at the property involved. Despite that, our professional liability insurer wanted to settle -- in fact, they wanted so much to settle that my boss had to sue his own insurance company to defend us against a patently frivolous claim. Once they did, the judge dismissed the claim against us immediately.

Another time I was hired as an expert witness in a personal injury case. I was working for the attorneys representing the defendant, a contractor/home builder. Once I had looked at the site where the injury occurred and gave them my opinion, the attorney I was working for picked up the phone and settled while I was still sitting in his office. (In that case, the defendant really was -- IMHO -- liable, and clearly so. To litigate the case would have been a waste of time and effort, because we were going to lose anyway.)

[44 AMP]

. . . study published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review indicates that, contrary to accepted knowledge,
belief in all statements, be they plausible or implausible, increases w/ repetition.... [and]
even patent lies may slowly become more credible, provided enough repetition.

new study, huh??

Herr Dr Goebbels understood the concept, and put it into practice.

The "Big Lie" doesn't have to be big to work, it just has to be repeated enough with no challenges allowed...

The big lie we are seeing here is the one that someone OTHER THAN the person who pulled the trigger is responsible, and therefore should pay to atone for their "sins".

[mehavey]

^^ Concur All ^^

[44 AMP]

And insurance is all about the bottom line.

And this is exactly it.

Guilt, innocence, and even responsibility is of no concern to an insurance company, IF, they determine establishing that (in court) will cost them more than settling out of court and making the matter go away, they will always go for the cheapest way out, FOR THEM.

It is the common perception that innocent people (or companies) won't settle out of court and want to go to court to prove their innocence, so many people assume that settlement is a de facto admission of guilt. But, it isn't. Yes, actually guilty entities often do settle out of court, but settling out of court is not an admission of guilt or responsibility.

Another common and waaay over used perception is that "innocent people have nothing to hide".

I disagree, I believe we all have 'something to hide" and its our RIGHT to do so, its called PRIVACY!

I see they are suing the father of the Highland park killer, apparently the claim is that he knew (or should have known?) his son was too disturbed to be trusted with firearms, but signed off on his application for the FOID his state requires, anyway.... I can't see where he broke any law or is responsible for anything other than execrable judgement, but obviously someone thinks differently.

They'd probably have sued the mother of the Sand Hook killer, too, if he hadn't killed her first, (and, technically, stolen her rifle).

What I always thought was the weakest part of the lawsuit against Remington (owner of Bushmaster at the time) was the claim that Bushmaster's advertising led the shooter to get that gun, and do what he did, never once admitting that it was his Mother who bought and legally owned the gun(s) and he stole them in order to commit murder with them.

I guess my "old fashioned" upbringing results in my simply not being able to see the "logic" behind suing people/companies for the acts of individuals who happen to use their products for unlawful purposes.

Might as well sue the farmer who grows food, the trucker to takes it to market, and the stores that sell it, because after all, every single criminal in the world eats food.....

[mehavey]

I guess my "old fashioned" upbringing results in my simply not being able to
see the "logic" behind suing people/companies for the acts of individuals who
happen to use their products for unlawful purposes.

Under current legal conditions, it's a no-brainer, low/no risk, high return shot at making millions off someone else's bank account. "Boom!"
Jury sympathy vote, someone needs to pay the bereaved, deep pockets of the insured -- and after all -- 'you got insurance, right ?
You wanna just make this go away... right ?

Impeccable logic.... *
... under current conditions.




* Pay no attention to that 50% legal firm behind the curtain.


.