Bushmaster/BullsEye Pay $2.5 Million (Sniper Case)
- Thread starter Ironbarr
- Start date
Wonderful.
It's this kind of spineless and fearful failure to stand up that injures our rights as a whole. By taking the easy way out these businesses have once again failed their customers and the firearm owning public. This is the kind of thing that the anti-gun politicians and liberal public feed on. I will make sure that, even though it is right around the corner, I will not visit Bullseye again. I will also make sure that Bushmaster Rifles don't get any more of my pennies to weasel their way out of lawsuits they could fight. Just my two cents.
Not to mention the precedent set that will lead the way for more anti-manufacturer lawsuits, and legitimize them.
It's this kind of spineless and fearful failure to stand up that injures our rights as a whole. By taking the easy way out these businesses have once again failed their customers and the firearm owning public. This is the kind of thing that the anti-gun politicians and liberal public feed on. I will make sure that, even though it is right around the corner, I will not visit Bullseye again. I will also make sure that Bushmaster Rifles don't get any more of my pennies to weasel their way out of lawsuits they could fight. Just my two cents.
Not to mention the precedent set that will lead the way for more anti-manufacturer lawsuits, and legitimize them.
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Danindetroit
New member
They should have fought, they produced a weapon that worked exactly as advertised. How can bushmaster make a gun that can identify targets, and not shoot. I am not sure about that state but if you sue in MI, and lose the attorneys, and maybe the people suing have to pay for bushmaster's defense. The only thing is maybe at night the gunshop did not did not secure the weapons, according to a state or local law, they seem to have paid the majority of the fine. I guess if your car is stolen, you and GM are responsible for any robberies, or accidents caused by your car if you did not have the doors locked, the windows rolledup all the way, and the latest, and greatest alarm system. If more companies fought these lawsuits, they might find that some juries do believe in personal responsibility.
I did not see your post 38, but it does seem that law is based on precedents, and now they have one.
I did not see your post 38, but it does seem that law is based on precedents, and now they have one.
PsychoSword
Moderator
$2.5 mil in liability?
I'm pretty sure the Bushmaster rifle was not defective.
Not in the long run. But again....apparently money is everything. Even to companies like Bushmaster that completely dominate the market and could piss away $20 million without noticing it.
Beretta owns everyone in Europe already, but I found out tonight that it seems they're trying to hide the fact that a few SAKO/TIKKA rifles could cause the user serious injury or death.
I'm pretty sure the Bushmaster rifle was not defective.
Not in the long run. But again....apparently money is everything. Even to companies like Bushmaster that completely dominate the market and could piss away $20 million without noticing it.
Beretta owns everyone in Europe already, but I found out tonight that it seems they're trying to hide the fact that a few SAKO/TIKKA rifles could cause the user serious injury or death.
What 4V50 Gary said.
I also wonder if, since at some point the defendent(s) knew they would pay out as a result of their own decision(s), why they couldn't make a $2.5M payment to a special fund for the widows and children of the victims. They may not have known the exact dollar figure of the judgement before hand, but the establishment of a fund like that could provide evidence of some form of "restitution" or aid to the families and survivors of the victims without the resultant politics associated with a LIABILITY suit settlement against them.
I also wonder if, since at some point the defendent(s) knew they would pay out as a result of their own decision(s), why they couldn't make a $2.5M payment to a special fund for the widows and children of the victims. They may not have known the exact dollar figure of the judgement before hand, but the establishment of a fund like that could provide evidence of some form of "restitution" or aid to the families and survivors of the victims without the resultant politics associated with a LIABILITY suit settlement against them.
What precedent?
"I did not see your post 38, but it does seem that law is based on precedents, and now they have one."
"They" have no such thing. The case was settled by an AGREEMENT, not a judgment. Therefore, there is no precedent.
And the ballyhooed populist cure-all of "tort reform" would have zero effect on this case. The Federal bill exempting manufacturers from liability where there was no product defect would have.
"I did not see your post 38, but it does seem that law is based on precedents, and now they have one."
"They" have no such thing. The case was settled by an AGREEMENT, not a judgment. Therefore, there is no precedent.
And the ballyhooed populist cure-all of "tort reform" would have zero effect on this case. The Federal bill exempting manufacturers from liability where there was no product defect would have.
"Tort Lotto"
You guys should go into business. Insurance companies tell you up front they have the right to settle with plaintiffs REGARDLESS IF YOU ARE COMPLETELY IN THE RIGHT AND THE CASE HAS NO MERIT!!! If it will save them money.
Even if Bushmaster wanted to take this to court, the insurance company has the right to settle with the plaintiff. If Bushmaster goes to court they have NO insurance coverage. Bushmasters wishes notwithstanding, the Insurance company makes the decision, not Bushmaster.
In my line of work no insurance = no business license = you do not work.
PS Wana bet where most of the money is going, it ain't to the kiddies
You guys should go into business. Insurance companies tell you up front they have the right to settle with plaintiffs REGARDLESS IF YOU ARE COMPLETELY IN THE RIGHT AND THE CASE HAS NO MERIT!!! If it will save them money.
Even if Bushmaster wanted to take this to court, the insurance company has the right to settle with the plaintiff. If Bushmaster goes to court they have NO insurance coverage. Bushmasters wishes notwithstanding, the Insurance company makes the decision, not Bushmaster.
In my line of work no insurance = no business license = you do not work.
PS Wana bet where most of the money is going, it ain't to the kiddies
Danindetroit
New member
6
It says nothing about Bushmaster's Insurance company, it talks about a gunstore's insurance company. I state that bushmaster was not at fault. The gun performed as it was supposed to. Bushmaster probably being a big enough company does not have insurance, but a bond. Many small businesses band together to create funds for workman's comp. The gun store might have actually had some sort of liability, because they did not have the right type of lock on a gun vault. I believe Bushmaster, could have said they do not want to pay. and fought, they admitted no fault, so did ford, and firestone, and a lot of people got new tires on thier explorers. I guess I hear on this website, to use the best weapon, and the best ammo to defend your life, well I believe they should have fought bottom line.
My friend was involved in a lawsuit, while working for a city on a vehicle that had sirens, and saftey equipment, a lady moved out of his way while he was draging chains behind a tractor on a walking path. She stepped onto the path too early, fell and broke her arm. The city offered her $120,000 in 1988, she said no, and went to court asking for $2 million. My friend spent $13,000 on his own lawyer, and the city spent a bunch too. She lost, her lawyers, or her, I am not sure who had to pay the city's legal fees, and my friends. So I guess going to court is sometimes much cheaper than settling. Ignore the beancounter, and fight for the principle, or at least for the blood in the water effect this will have for other lawyers. Maybe it does not set a legal precedent per se, that is in the law books, but anybody who reads that article, and knows nothing about guns is going to think that gun company paid some money and they had a product that wasn't faulty they must have known they did something wrong, might be on a jury in a similar lawsuit. It sets another bad example. I am not sure which gun company was first, or if it started with the tobacco company, but I bet within 5 years an overweight person wins a case against a food company, for making good tasting food, or marketing thier food too well.
The insurance company can settle, but the company can fight back if they want to. Doctors do it all the time.
It says nothing about Bushmaster's Insurance company, it talks about a gunstore's insurance company. I state that bushmaster was not at fault. The gun performed as it was supposed to. Bushmaster probably being a big enough company does not have insurance, but a bond. Many small businesses band together to create funds for workman's comp. The gun store might have actually had some sort of liability, because they did not have the right type of lock on a gun vault. I believe Bushmaster, could have said they do not want to pay. and fought, they admitted no fault, so did ford, and firestone, and a lot of people got new tires on thier explorers. I guess I hear on this website, to use the best weapon, and the best ammo to defend your life, well I believe they should have fought bottom line.
My friend was involved in a lawsuit, while working for a city on a vehicle that had sirens, and saftey equipment, a lady moved out of his way while he was draging chains behind a tractor on a walking path. She stepped onto the path too early, fell and broke her arm. The city offered her $120,000 in 1988, she said no, and went to court asking for $2 million. My friend spent $13,000 on his own lawyer, and the city spent a bunch too. She lost, her lawyers, or her, I am not sure who had to pay the city's legal fees, and my friends. So I guess going to court is sometimes much cheaper than settling. Ignore the beancounter, and fight for the principle, or at least for the blood in the water effect this will have for other lawyers. Maybe it does not set a legal precedent per se, that is in the law books, but anybody who reads that article, and knows nothing about guns is going to think that gun company paid some money and they had a product that wasn't faulty they must have known they did something wrong, might be on a jury in a similar lawsuit. It sets another bad example. I am not sure which gun company was first, or if it started with the tobacco company, but I bet within 5 years an overweight person wins a case against a food company, for making good tasting food, or marketing thier food too well.
The insurance company can settle, but the company can fight back if they want to. Doctors do it all the time.
Vanguard.45
New member
Excuse Me?
Sonia Wills, the mother of victim Conrad Johnson, said $2.5 million "is nothing."
"They know they’re worth more than that," she said Friday. "This money will never bring my son back. It will never bring back any of the loved ones that were taken."
********************************************************
I guess $10 million would have brought them back?
How is it that being a victim of a burglary or being a supplier to a victim of an eventual burglary makes one responsible for how the criminals use the stolen property?
That would be like saying:
a) if a woman with HIV is raped, and
b) then the rapist has sex with another woman,
c) that the rape victim could then be sued by the second woman if she contracts HIV.
What an upside down world we have allowed the lawyers to create! It's just like the taxpayers paying the families whose loved ones were killed in the World Trade Center. Tell me how I could have prevented that tragedy or what I did to cause that tragedy, and I'll be the first in line to pay the bills. Just ludicrous!
If only people recognized that it is the LAWYERS who are making all of the money here exploiting these tragedies. Have they no shame??? Have we no common sense???
Sonia Wills, the mother of victim Conrad Johnson, said $2.5 million "is nothing."
"They know they’re worth more than that," she said Friday. "This money will never bring my son back. It will never bring back any of the loved ones that were taken."
********************************************************
I guess $10 million would have brought them back?
How is it that being a victim of a burglary or being a supplier to a victim of an eventual burglary makes one responsible for how the criminals use the stolen property?
That would be like saying:
a) if a woman with HIV is raped, and
b) then the rapist has sex with another woman,
c) that the rape victim could then be sued by the second woman if she contracts HIV.
What an upside down world we have allowed the lawyers to create! It's just like the taxpayers paying the families whose loved ones were killed in the World Trade Center. Tell me how I could have prevented that tragedy or what I did to cause that tragedy, and I'll be the first in line to pay the bills. Just ludicrous!
If only people recognized that it is the LAWYERS who are making all of the money here exploiting these tragedies. Have they no shame??? Have we no common sense???
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Not admitting liability is good, but I'm still unclear on what Bull's Eye supposedly did or did not do that gave rise to ALLEGED liability. Did they submit a falsified 4473 or somehow misrepresent or omit info on the 4473 during the NICS check, or what? And I'm REALLY unclear on what Bushmaster supposedly did wrong (my guess is nothing). How exactly did Mohammed obtain this gun from Bulls Eye? Just an ordinary purchase?
Vanguard.45
New member
The weapon was STOLEN!
That's what makes this so funny (in a sad way)!
That's what makes this so funny (in a sad way)!
Danindetroit
New member
I heard they were stolen. I am just wondering if the state has a law about securing weapons after hours, and the gunstore was not up to code. It DOES NOT make it right that they should have to pay. If that is the case, you leave your keys in your car, or your car running after forgetting something inside, then that means you are liable for deaths are damage if someone walks up and steals your car since you are not incorporated, they can technically take everything you own. I guess they wanted the publicity to go away. Once again the only ones who come out ahead are attorneys. It took them along time to win their first case against tobacco companies. They are just starting on fast food. I think in asbestos lawsuits, they have bankrupted most of the companies that made asbestos, now they are going after companies who used asbestos, I think brake pad manufacturers are favorites, now.
I think that I remember this correctly, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.
The gun store had an enormous amout of errors on their part. IIRC, hundreds of guns were missing or mismarked, or whatever. Ah. This is from an Anti-site, but the facts are there (and are in the ballpark from what I remember). http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/ags_in_the_news_article.asp?id=296&page=1
From 98-02, they were unable to account for 238 firearms.
When the FBI traced the gun there, at that point in time they were unable to account for 78 guns.
97-01, 52 guns used in crimes were traced back to that store.
On top of that, they were convicted of tax evasion.
Now to me, that spells out negligence on their part. I'm not saying that we should throw gun shop owners in prison if they misrecord one gun in their bound books, but I can't see how you misplace 200+ guns.
Here is two more links which back up the evidence:
http://community.tamucc.edu/wiki/PeterPorcher/Home
http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/shooting_sports/
Can't find the article, but what I think happened with Bushmaster, was their insurance company gave them the half-million, and told them they could fight with it, or settle, they didn't care. So, they settled instead of fighting.
The gun store had an enormous amout of errors on their part. IIRC, hundreds of guns were missing or mismarked, or whatever. Ah. This is from an Anti-site, but the facts are there (and are in the ballpark from what I remember). http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/ags_in_the_news_article.asp?id=296&page=1
From 98-02, they were unable to account for 238 firearms.
When the FBI traced the gun there, at that point in time they were unable to account for 78 guns.
97-01, 52 guns used in crimes were traced back to that store.
On top of that, they were convicted of tax evasion.
Now to me, that spells out negligence on their part. I'm not saying that we should throw gun shop owners in prison if they misrecord one gun in their bound books, but I can't see how you misplace 200+ guns.
Here is two more links which back up the evidence:
http://community.tamucc.edu/wiki/PeterPorcher/Home
http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/shooting_sports/
Can't find the article, but what I think happened with Bushmaster, was their insurance company gave them the half-million, and told them they could fight with it, or settle, they didn't care. So, they settled instead of fighting.
Rereading.
After re-reading my initial response it does seem rather hot-blooded and unprofessional. For that I apologize. For a moment I had forgotten how much the opposition feed on unprofessionalism. I do, however, stand by my opinion, especially regarding a precedent. Although it was an agreement and not a ruling, the decision to settle has sent a message to the anti-gun machine that manufacturers of firearms CAN and WILL accept responsibility for misuse. This may indeed be used as ammunition for future lawsuits. This is just my opinion, and since (thankfully) I am not involved law or politics regarding this type of matter I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am. ( It does happen once every month or so
)
When I was stationed at Ft. Lewis in March, Bullseye came very highly recommended by several of my unit members, including some senior leadership who shoot competitvely. Although I did not purchase a firearm from them, I did purchase thousands of rounds of ammo, several holsters/accesories, and some other gear. From the outside, their operation looked pretty solid. I have no idea what goes on with the book-keeping, but am now tempted to ask.
These are just the opinions of a "high-mileage" 21 year old and could be mistaken, but there they are.
After re-reading my initial response it does seem rather hot-blooded and unprofessional. For that I apologize. For a moment I had forgotten how much the opposition feed on unprofessionalism. I do, however, stand by my opinion, especially regarding a precedent. Although it was an agreement and not a ruling, the decision to settle has sent a message to the anti-gun machine that manufacturers of firearms CAN and WILL accept responsibility for misuse. This may indeed be used as ammunition for future lawsuits. This is just my opinion, and since (thankfully) I am not involved law or politics regarding this type of matter I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am. ( It does happen once every month or so
)When I was stationed at Ft. Lewis in March, Bullseye came very highly recommended by several of my unit members, including some senior leadership who shoot competitvely. Although I did not purchase a firearm from them, I did purchase thousands of rounds of ammo, several holsters/accesories, and some other gear. From the outside, their operation looked pretty solid. I have no idea what goes on with the book-keeping, but am now tempted to ask.
These are just the opinions of a "high-mileage" 21 year old and could be mistaken, but there they are.
You COULD be liable
"If that is the case, you leave your keys in your car, or your car running after forgetting something inside, then that means you are liable for deaths are damage if someone walks up and steals your car"
Does the term "gross negligence" sound familiar? We've not had mere cars stolen from people that stupid, we've had cars with KIDS in them taken by thieves who did not realize the child was in the back.
And yes, someone who was careless/stupid/irresponsible/reckless (your choice) to leave a running motor vehicle could be facing a civil suit from the family of the people killed when the thief ran the stoplight and T-boned the minivan coming from soccer practice. In my state, it is technically illegal to leave a running motor vehicle unattended (I say that because I've never seen any of these morons so charged, even the one that left the $40k SUV running in front of Starbucks while he ran in for his morning latte). And yes, this WAS one of the vehicles with a child in it.
If there is a statute or regulation requiring firearms to be secured after business hours, AND Bullseye failed to so secure its inventory, then it would obviously be in violation of that law. It would therefore be subject to criminal action AND the civil suits resulting from its failure.
"If that is the case, you leave your keys in your car, or your car running after forgetting something inside, then that means you are liable for deaths are damage if someone walks up and steals your car"
Does the term "gross negligence" sound familiar? We've not had mere cars stolen from people that stupid, we've had cars with KIDS in them taken by thieves who did not realize the child was in the back.
And yes, someone who was careless/stupid/irresponsible/reckless (your choice) to leave a running motor vehicle could be facing a civil suit from the family of the people killed when the thief ran the stoplight and T-boned the minivan coming from soccer practice. In my state, it is technically illegal to leave a running motor vehicle unattended (I say that because I've never seen any of these morons so charged, even the one that left the $40k SUV running in front of Starbucks while he ran in for his morning latte). And yes, this WAS one of the vehicles with a child in it.
If there is a statute or regulation requiring firearms to be secured after business hours, AND Bullseye failed to so secure its inventory, then it would obviously be in violation of that law. It would therefore be subject to criminal action AND the civil suits resulting from its failure.
Danindetroit
New member
Sorry for being unclear, I believe law varies from state to state. I was talking about leaving my car in my driveway, running , and going inside to retrieve something. I don't have kids, I do not drink coffee, I only leave my car running if it is hot out, or cold. I do not own a $40,000 SUV, do not try to pigeonhole me. Well goss negligence, should be able to be used by the insurance company, to not pay for your car. When I delivered fuel, a dispatcher, left work, and stop at a gas station where the last load of the day was being dropped, he left his car running, and unlocked, was talking to the driver, and his car was stolen, 6 mile & Schaefer. It sounds like if MI had a gross negligence law like you are taking about insurance company would not have to pay. They did. So the state recognizes that leaving a car running in a public place in and of itself, is not a danger. It is like saying you fogot to lock the door on your house, you should expect to get robbed. What state do you live in comrade? Because once the state says I can't leave my car running on my property, then the state forfeits its right to govern in my book. List a lawsuit where this has happened, because you must be a lawyer. In your state , what if I had the car locked, but the window rolled down, a little, or the sunroof open Am I liable, do I have to have the latest, car locking system and alarm. Sounds like lawyer legislation to me. The example you give is a prime example of the he is a bad person because he hurt a child, or could allow a child to be hurt. Was the SUV locked, and the air was running, or heat? They have keyless remotes now, you can lock your car, and leave it running, and take the remote. The bottom line is that a crime was commited, to get the vehicle, in MI to take a persons car without breaking and entering, and using a key is unlwaful driving away. The criminal act starts the chain of events, the criminal is responsible, for the outcome stemming from his or her acts. If you can not understand that, than the liberal school system has done well.
It's called "foreseeability"
"So the state recognizes that leaving a car running in a public place in and of itself, is not a danger."
Nonsense. First, the mere fact that an insurance company paid for a car stolen, in part, because the irresponsible driver left it running while unattended is NOT "state recognition," whatever your fantasies are.
Second, "leaving a car running in a public place" facilitates the very likely and foreseeable consequence of someone stealing that vehicle, whether a kid who sees an opportunity for a simple joyride or something much worse. If YOU created that likelihood, you could be held liable for it.
"I only leave my car running if it is hot out, or cold."
Well, glad you narrowed it down to those emergency situations.....
"Because once the state says I can't leave my car running on my property, then the state forfeits its right to govern in my book."
Your "book" is irrelevant. Try a REAL book - a law book. Here's a start:
"G.L.c. 90, § 13. Safety precautions for proper operation and parking of vehicles:
No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle, ....., shall allow such vehicle to stand in any way and remain unattended without stopping the engine of said vehicle, effectively setting the brakes thereof or making it fast, and locking and removing the key from the locking device and from the vehicle."
Got that? LOCKING AND REMOVING THE KEY.
And for those cretins who leave kids in cars:
"102 CMR 8.10: Supervision
Children in Vehicles. A caregiver must never leave a child unattended in a vehicle."
Concise, precise, direct. Don't leave kids alone in cars.
In short, don't facilitate crime and the consequences thereof by virtually GIVING a running motor vehicle to anyone and everyone who strolls by. Would you leave your gun on the counter of the coffee shop while you dashed back to your (running) car for your wallet? Both are lethal instrumentalities.
"If you can not understand that, than the liberal school system has done well."
"So the state recognizes that leaving a car running in a public place in and of itself, is not a danger."
Nonsense. First, the mere fact that an insurance company paid for a car stolen, in part, because the irresponsible driver left it running while unattended is NOT "state recognition," whatever your fantasies are.
Second, "leaving a car running in a public place" facilitates the very likely and foreseeable consequence of someone stealing that vehicle, whether a kid who sees an opportunity for a simple joyride or something much worse. If YOU created that likelihood, you could be held liable for it.
"I only leave my car running if it is hot out, or cold."
Well, glad you narrowed it down to those emergency situations.....
"Because once the state says I can't leave my car running on my property, then the state forfeits its right to govern in my book."
Your "book" is irrelevant. Try a REAL book - a law book. Here's a start:
"G.L.c. 90, § 13. Safety precautions for proper operation and parking of vehicles:
No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle, ....., shall allow such vehicle to stand in any way and remain unattended without stopping the engine of said vehicle, effectively setting the brakes thereof or making it fast, and locking and removing the key from the locking device and from the vehicle."
Got that? LOCKING AND REMOVING THE KEY.
And for those cretins who leave kids in cars:
"102 CMR 8.10: Supervision
Children in Vehicles. A caregiver must never leave a child unattended in a vehicle."
Concise, precise, direct. Don't leave kids alone in cars.
In short, don't facilitate crime and the consequences thereof by virtually GIVING a running motor vehicle to anyone and everyone who strolls by. Would you leave your gun on the counter of the coffee shop while you dashed back to your (running) car for your wallet? Both are lethal instrumentalities.
"If you can not understand that, than the liberal school system has done well."