Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: Remington Settles for $73 million

  1. #21
    Delta Busta Kappa fratboy Hot Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by joshs View Post
    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.
    Wow, what a load of nonsense. All those points are such an incredible stretch to any kind of common sense understanding of liability and causality.
    Gaming will get you killed in the streets. Dueling will get you killed in the fields.
    -Alexander Hamilton

  2. #22
    Site Supporter walker2713's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Louisiana

    Ducking

    This is not a situation where a court of law has found Remington responsible for the sale or use of their firearms, but rather the company decided to settle out of court rather than proceed to trial.

    I assume that Remington and/or their counsel believed there was a likelihood that the courts would find for the plaintiffs and assess some serious financial charges, along with a substantial amount of bad publicity engendered by the media during the proceedings..

    All the recent concern that Congress might find a way to make it easier to sue firearms companies may not be such a threat after all…..as long as companies are willing to give up before the legal fight begins.

    Perhaps there were some unique circumstances for Remington in how they handled this, and someone here might weigh in with some background.

    An extremely disappointed outcome to say the least.

    George
    Gun Free Zones Aren’t an Inhibition….they’re an Invitation.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Quote Originally Posted by Hot Sauce View Post
    Wow, what a load of nonsense. All those points are such an incredible stretch to any kind of common sense understanding of liability and causality.
    Liability has only a tangential relationship with common sense.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  4. #24
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by walker2713 View Post

    I assume that Remington and/or their counsel believed there was a likelihood that the courts would find for the plaintiffs and assess some serious financial charges, along with a substantial amount of bad publicity engendered by the media during the proceedings..
    As noted up thread the decision to settle was not made by Remington, but rather their insurance company as the iteration of Remington being sued no longer exists.

    While the likelihood of a finding for the plaintiff may have been a factor, even if they are likely to prevail over the plaintiff the cost of a successful defense may cross over into "the process is the punishment"- territory.

  5. #25
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Henderson, NV
    This is total BS. If their logic was to be followed through, Remington would not be the only manufacturer liable. Every manufacturer with like ads would be. The Remington was not chosen to commit a crime, it was only there by circumstance. And to take it forward, every violent movie, TV show or video game should also be held liable.
    With liberty and justice for all...must be 18, void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply, not available in all states.

  6. #26
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Well, what goes around comes around. The GOP fixation on abortion may lead to this:

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...akers-00010201

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom is getting the gun control version of Texas’ abortion law that he called for in December.

    State Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) on Friday unveiled new legislation that would allow Californians to sue makers and sellers of assault weapons, .50 BMG rifles, ghost guns or ghost gun kits. Officials didn’t go into the details of the bill, but made it clear that it’s based on a Texas law allowing people to sue abortion providers.
    Fanatics of both parties with their fixations on suppressing individual rights.

  7. #27
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    I think CA may have done it first anyway. I looked into Prop. 65 (the source of all the "this stuff will give you cancer" warnings) a few months back. What I thought I understood was that anyone can sue a company for failing to label a product if required by the law. The tricky thing about it is that the way the law works, a whole lot of stuff that no reasonable (and fully informed) person would consider hazardous must be labeled as such.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  8. #28
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    Well, what goes around comes around. The GOP fixation on abortion may lead to this:

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...akers-00010201



    Fanatics of both parties with their fixations on suppressing individual rights.
    Aren't all those things already illegal in California? The aren't attempting to make anything new illegal through a private enforcement provision.

  9. #29
    Site Supporter TDA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    As noted up thread the decision to settle was not made by Remington, but rather their insurance company as the iteration of Remington being sued no longer exists.

    While the likelihood of a finding for the plaintiff may have been a factor, even if they are likely to prevail over the plaintiff the cost of a successful defense may cross over into "the process is the punishment"- territory.
    I think the amount the insurer settled for was the actual policy limit. $73 million dollars will buy you Kennedy cousin levels of litigation. The insurer settled to send a message that they’re not going to defend their insured and they’ll want to raise rates to levels that make it impossible for politically undesirable companies to stay insured.

  10. #30
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Quote Originally Posted by TDA View Post
    I think the amount the insurer settled for was the actual policy limit. $73 million dollars will buy you Kennedy cousin levels of litigation. The insurer settled to send a message that they’re not going to defend their insured and they’ll want to raise rates to levels that make it impossible for politically undesirable companies to stay insured.
    That’s not how commercial insurance works.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •