Remington Settles for $73 million

[JohnO]

Local CT TV News station trotted out and old picture from Sand Hook days. Featured on their home pace. https://www.wtnh.com/

In case it changes.



Pictured is a Bushmaster and an AR15!

[HeavyDuty]

Their insurer(s). The suit was against Remington Outdoor Company, which no longer exists. That company's insurers decided to settle the claims rather than proceed with the case.

Now I’m curious if defense costs were inside or outside the limits. This feels like AIG.

[BehindBlueI's]

This as a legal precedent has some potentially dire consequences for a lot of different businesses.

I'm reasonably sure settlements don't create legal precedent, only cases that are adjudicated by trial do.

[joshs]

I'm reasonably sure settlements don't create legal precedent, only cases that are adjudicated by trial do.

In this case, the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision to allow Connecticut's unfair trade practices law to trigger the PLCAA's predicate exemption is unfortunately bad precedent that led to the need for the settlement.

[fatdog]

One thing I bet some gun companies are going to think twice about, if they have not already, is those paid placements in the video games. Going forward that is going to be seen as a marketing no-no by any of the larger companies.

[Shotgun]

In this case, the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision to allow Connecticut's unfair trade practices law to trigger the PLCAA's predicate exemption is unfortunately bad precedent that led to the need for the settlement.

Josh, was there a written opinion on this that you can share a link to?

[RoyGBiv]

Josh, was there a written opinion on this that you can share a link to?

Search Soto v Bushmaster ...

Quick results... didn't do a deep dive for written opinions.

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/Case...WYCV156050025S

https://law.justia.com/cases/connect...9/sc19832.html

ETA: https://www.pullcom.com/pp/publication-1070.pdf

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thanks for the links. I read the initial complaint and I think that those interested in the issue should read what was presented by the plantiffs.

1. The gun is portrayed as a military weapon. It is difficult for a civilian to use in home SD, according to military and prone to leading to innocents being shot. Hard to manipulate in a home.

2. The difference between fully auto and semi auto is discredited in their view by military doctrine to use semi auto fire. Note, the gun world tries to call the gun a MSR and make the distinction a defense and denounce the term 'assault rifle' based on the distinction.

3. The need for the gun for SD is discredited as the NRA civilian usage reports comes up with an average of two-ish rounds. Thus 30 rounds, etc. not needed. Note the emphasis on SD (which Heller bought into) and the famous 5 is enough mantra.

4. Not needed for hunting as if that was the focus of the Second Amendment. The defense against tyranny is not mentioned and we note that this emphasis is de-emphasized by major segments of the gun world for various reasons. The modern sporting rifle usage attempt to appeal to common usage but also admits it is a toy and as such might be banned as are other dangerous toys like those a baby might eat.

5. The marketing of the gun as a lethal weapon promotes that behavior. I note that the research suggesting the gun primes aggression and video games prime aggression is not mentioned. A combo of promoting the gun in aggressive video games would be a double whammy if you called an aggressive priming expert as a witness. That debate would have been be interesting as I mentioned there is controversy in the literature. I wonder if such folks would have been called in a trial.

So your mission as a Second Amendment advocate is to debunk these claims. Just shouting, 2nd Amendment - shall not be ...
isn't going to cut it to many folks on a jury.

As far as insurance settling - what else is new. That's what they do. I know of a Glock box, pulled the trigger on a loaded gun to place in the case suit that killed an officer. Yes, the officer should have known to clear the gun, etc. Experts were lined up (some of which I knew). Then the case never went to trial. Experts stood down - a settlement, even if Glock might have won.

So if the gun company wins. You might know of the case where a guy didn't get his single action Ruger revolver modified to be drop safe, even though he was shown to be aware of the recall and danger. He dropped it. Got shot. He sued. Ruger won - AND - they still coughed up some bucks to shut them up and prevent appeals.

[joshs]

Thanks for the links. I read the initial complaint and I think that those interested in the issue should read what was presented by the plantiffs.

1. The gun is portrayed as a military weapon. It is difficult for a civilian to use in home SD, according to military and prone to leading to innocents being shot. Hard to manipulate in a home.

2. The difference between fully auto and semi auto is discredited in their view by military doctrine to use semi auto fire. Note, the gun world tries to call the gun a MSR and make the distinction a defense and denounce the term 'assault rifle' based on the distinction.

3. The need for the gun for SD is discredited as the NRA civilian usage reports comes up with an average of two-ish rounds. Thus 30 rounds, etc. not needed. Note the emphasis on SD (which Heller bought into) and the famous 5 is enough mantra.

4. Not needed for hunting as if that was the focus of the Second Amendment. The defense against tyranny is not mentioned and we note that this emphasis is de-emphasized by major segments of the gun world for various reasons. The modern sporting rifle usage attempt to appeal to common usage but also admits it is a toy and as such might be banned as are other dangerous toys like those a baby might eat.

5. The marketing of the gun as a lethal weapon promotes that behavior. I note that the research suggesting the gun primes aggression and video games prime aggression is not mentioned. A combo of promoting the gun in aggressive video games would be a double whammy if you called an aggressive priming expert as a witness. That debate would have been be interesting as I mentioned there is controversy in the literature. I wonder if such folks would have been called in a trial.

1-4 were not relevant to the CUPTA claims though, which were the only claims that the Court (incorrectly in my view) allowed to proceed under the "predicate" exception to the PLCAA. I know you are looking at this through the view of a psychologist, but that's not what's relevant to a claim under CUPTA or whether or not the PLCAA's predicate exception applies. The claim was primarily that Bushmaster (Remington) specifically advertised in such a way that was unlawful under CUPTA.

The Court even indicated that it didn't think this would be possible to prove at trial:

"In the present case, by contrast, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants' wrongful advertising magnified the lethality of the Sandy Hook massacre by inspiring Lanza or causing him to select a more efficiently deadly weapon for his attack. Proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task. But if it can be proven—and the posture in which this case reaches us requires that we assume it can30—the link between the allegedly wrongful conduct and the plaintiffs' injuries would be far more direct and less attenuated than in Ganim."

Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int'l, LLC, 331 Conn. 53, 98 (2019).

Here are the factual allegations relied upon by the Court that they found could support a wrongful marketing claim under CUPTA:

The plaintiffs further contend that the defendants' unethically promoted their assault weapons for offensive, military style missions by publishing advertisements and distributing product catalogs that (1) promote the AR-15 as “the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission adaptable as you are,” (2) depict soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, armed with Bushmaster rifles, (3) feature the slogan “[w]hen you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers,” superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag, (4) tout the “military proven performance” of firearms like the XM15-E2S, (5) promote civilian rifles as “the ultimate combat weapons system,” (6) invoke the unparalleled destructive power of their AR-15 rifles, (7) claim that the most elite branches of the United States military, including the United States Navy SEALs, the United States Army Green Berets and Army Rangers, and other special forces, have used the AR-15, and (8) depict a close-up of an AR-15 with the following slogan: “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”

Finally, with respect to this second, wrongful marketing theory of liability, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants' marketing of the XM15-E2S to civilians for offensive assault missions was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs' injuries. Specifically, they contend that Lanza had dreamed as a child of joining the elite Army Rangers unit of the United States Army and was, therefore, especially susceptible to militaristic marketing. They further contend that he selected the XM15-E2S for his assault from among an arsenal that included various less lethal arms—at least three handguns, one shotgun, two bolt action rifles, and three samurai swords—and that he specifically chose the XM15-E2S not only for its functional capabilities, including its assaultive qualities and efficiency in inflicting mass casualties, but also because of its marketed association with the military. Finally, they contend that Lanza was a devoted player of first person shooter games featuring variants of the XM15-E2S and that he employed techniques taught in those games to enhance the lethality of his assault on the school. In other words, the plaintiffs allege that the attack, had it occurred at all, would have been less lethal and the carnage less grievous if Lanza had not been encouraged by the defendants' marketing campaign to select the XM15-E2S as his weapon of choice and taught by violent video games how to kill with it most efficiently. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

Id. at 74–75 (2019).

The obvious problem with this theory is Adam Lanza didn't select the firearm at all, his mother did. They also lacked evidence that Lanza had actually consumed any of the marketing that is alleged to have been a cause for him to carry out the attack.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting, thank for more info. I wonder though if the aggression lit might surface in another trial. That his mother bought the gun is a good point but you might argue that just having it around influenced him do what he might have read. That is a stretch but lawyers are lawyers. If it wasn't allowed though, that's moot. I wrote what I took away from the initial complaint - yes, as a psychologist. LOL.

"In the present case, by contrast, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants' wrongful advertising magnified the lethality of the Sandy Hook massacre by inspiring Lanza or causing him to select a more efficiently deadly weapon for his attack. Proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task. But if it can be proven—and the posture in which this case reaches us requires that we assume it can30—the link between the allegedly wrongful conduct and the plaintiffs' injuries would be far more direct and less attenuated than in Ganim."

I get the legalisms about the advertising. I wonder again, though, if it went to trial - would such factors enter into the plantiff's presentation. The trial judge would have had to comment on whether the 'science' allowed it, using the various expert witness criteria and relevance that exist.