CT Supreme Court-Remington CAN be sued for Sandy Hook

not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen that the most in advertisements of movies, tv and video games. Not talking about the movies and such themselves, but the advertisements of those. Can the entertainment industry even promote thier products in Connecticut or are they exempt from those rules too?

I still play video games, not knocking them in any way.
 
What's going to be interesting is Remington's next move. Will they go to trial and do their best to shoot down the plaintiffs' arguments in Connecticut superior court, and then appeal to the U.S. courts if they lose -- or will Remington go immediately to the federal courts to try to have the lawsuit thrown out under the federal law protecting lawful trade in firearms?
 
Today Remington filed for cert with he US Supreme Court.

There are horrendous legal defects in the claim being asserted, specifically proof that Lanza saw any ads, was influenced by any ads, or was the purchaser of the firearm in question. And those questions probably cannot be answered because he is dead, as is the original purchaser. Plus there is the fact that he stole the firearm after killing his mother. I really do not see how Plaitniffs can establish causation, but I don't think that that was necessarily the purpose of the litigation. Rather, I think that its real purpose is to establish a legal theory that can be exploited in other cases down the road, i.e., establish as a legal principle an exception to the federal immunity statute. Unless SCOTUS grants cert and overturns the decision, they will have succeeded.
 
Surprised that a new thread on this hasn’t popped up, but apparently the scotus has now allowed Remington to be sued by Sandy hook survivors.
 
That the suit against Remington can proceed is not a comment on its merits, but a conclusion of the lower court that the part of the complaint that survives falls within the PLCAA exception.

Respondents’ complaint alleges that petitioners violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which confers a right of action for personal-injury damages on any person harmed by “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stats. § 42-110b(a); see Pet. App. 62a. The complaint alleges that petitioners’ unlawful marketing of the XM15-E2S contributed to the deaths of the Sandy Hook victims by inspiring the shooter’s conduct and by causing him to select a particularly deadly weapon for his attack. Compl. ¶¶ 174-175, 219.
Click to expand...

I still think the underlying claim is very difficult to support factually and it isn't at all clear to me that the marketing in question is unlawful under the state code. I have a link to the docket below. If I weren't busy, I'd comb through it to see whether the regulation of speech implicit in the respondent's claims is a problem mentioned in any of the amicus briefs.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-168.html
 
I think it important for those of us not well schooled in the legalese used to understand that the actual situation is not what is implied in various headlines or by certain talking heads in the media.

If I'm understating this correctly (and please, do correct me if, and where I'm wrong) the accuser is saying Rem ads broke CN law, AND that contributed to the Sandy Hook murders, so Remington should pay us....

Remington asked the High Court to toss the suit, because of the Protection of legal commerce of arms act (PLCAA) and the High Court has now allowed the lawsuit against Rem to go to court.

AND THAT'S ALL

at this point.

All the SCOTUS has, in effect, done is tell the plaintiffs that they dotted all the needed "i"s and crossed the needed "t"s and may go to their court and make their argument.

Their exact argument as to why, and for what Remington is liable, has not yet been made, so discussion of details about proving or disproving anything at this point are premature.

Right now, the only actual facts involved are the ones about the murders, directly, and those are that the murderer was not the legal owner of the gun he used (which was his mother, and one of the people he murdered). This is not in dispute. Since he murdered the legal owner, I think it is correct to consider the gun stolen.

I have a general question for our resident legal eagles, in regard to the claim of Remington being (some degree of) liable for the murders, would this be a "beyond reasonable doubt" or a "preponderance of the evidence" thing??
or some other standard I am unaware of??? perhaps a bit of both??

Does the claim Rem broke the advertising law make it a criminal matter? Would that part (breaking a law) be treated as a criminal matter and Rem's "responsibility" in the murder a civil matter with its different standards?
 
Note that the SCOTUS did not rule on the merits, i. e., it did not conclude that the plaintiffs' claim actually falls within a PLCAA exception. Remington can still, at an appropriate, later stage of the litigation, again seek a federal court ruling that the underlying suit is barred by the PLCAA.

But Remington had taken what is called an interlocutory appeal, an appeal from a non-dispositive ruling. Interlocutory appeals tend to be disfavored. So it's perhaps not a surprise that SCOTUS declined to hear it.
 
Frank,

Given that the PLCAA was supposed to protect gunmakers from the financial burden of defending against nuisance lawsuits, wouldn't it make sense for Remington to pursue an interlocutory appeal?

I mean, for the PLCAA to have it's desired effect, it needs to come into play long before the case has been settled.

Just trying to see if I'm thinking about this right.
 
Yes, the appeal at this point was worth a try.But courts of appeal won't necessarily hear an interlocutory appeal. That's what I meant when I said that interlocutory appeals were disfavored -- they are by the courts, not necessarily the aggrieved party.
 
44 AMP said:
....I have a general question for our resident legal eagles, in regard to the claim of Remington being (some degree of) liable for the murders, would this be a "beyond reasonable doubt" or a "preponderance of the evidence" thing??
or some other standard I am unaware of??? perhaps a bit of both??

Does the claim Rem broke the advertising law make it a criminal matter? Would that part (breaking a law) be treated as a criminal matter and Rem's "responsibility" in the murder a civil matter with its different standards?
Click to expand...
I haven't had time to do any research on this, but I'm going to bet on "preponderance." This is a civil matter, brought by non-government plaintiffs, so that's the usual standard of proof.

As to the question of whether it's civil or criminal . . . . We all like to think of actions as being either legal or illegal, but the issue is a little squishier than that. So here we go: Sometimes the gov't passes a law and says, "Don't do X. Doing X is a crime, punishable by . . . . " That makes X a crime. Sometimes, it passes a law that says, "Don't do Y. If you do Y and it harms someone, then they can sue you." In this case, Y isn't really a crime, but the gov't has created a private right of action against people who do Y. IOW, the gov't has made Y illegal, but isn't going to prosecute them for you. If you're harmed by someone doing Y, you have to take them to court.

As Frank noted, interlocutory appeals are disfavored. The courts don't want litigants taking every little trial court decision up on appeal. If you think the courts are clogged now, imagine what that would do. That's why the rules generally require that order be a "final order" before an appeal can be taken. The PLCAA is something of an exception to that rule, and I can't blame Remington from trying its hand there. Still, and while this is purely speculative, it may be that there simply wasn't enough evidence in for SCOTUS to hear and dismiss. Personally, I'll be watching for cross-motions for summary judgment and another round of appeals filed then. Whether or not those are heard . . . . who knows?
 
I think it's going to be an interesting case. Someone has already pointed out that the shooter murdered his mother, ostensibly to gain access to/possession of the Bushmaster. The reports at the time of the incident seemed to suggest, however, that the mother purchased the Bushmaster because that was what he darling son wanted, and that darling son had ready access to the gun safe.

My fuzzy understanding is that the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to go forward because of an exception in the PLCAA that refers to breaking a state law, and Connecticut apparently has a state law that in some way addresses the way firearms are advertised. The plaintiffs' argument is that Remington/Bushmaster's advertising violated that Connecticut law. The lawsuit was originally dismissed at the lower court level, and it was reinstated and upheld on appeal because of this particular point.

Consequently, I foresee the possibility that the defense will try to stress the point that the shooter didn't own the gun, and that he stole it in oder to arm himself for the shooting. I expect the plaintiffs to argue that, despite the fact that the mother was the purchaser on paper, she bought it because that was what her son wanted and that therefore the advertising was aimed at the son and was in violation of the law.

Stay tuned. :Popcorn:
 
At the strategic level, the gun control side probably doesn’t expect to win the case anyway. They want to get to depositions so they can go through Remington’s marketing information and figure out what will hurt it worst. They’ll pass that info on to Everytown and Bloomberg.
 
the amount of misinformation about this case and the Supreme Courts declining to hear the appeal at this time, and what it means, coming from both sides, in the media and from pro and anti gun organizations, is astounding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top