Remington vs Sandy Hook settlement...Remington pays

Status
Not open for further replies.
mehavey said:
The problem is now the precedent set of destroying the manufacturer
of any legal product through incessant civil suit -- based not on
law, but on nebulous "perception" of how that product is presented.
Click to expand...

Explain how a pre-trial settlement is legal "precedent". Here is the definition...b. Law A judicial decision that is binding on other equal or lower courts in the same jurisdiction as to its conclusion on a point of law, and may also be persuasive to courts in other jurisdictions, in subsequent cases involving sufficiently similar facts.

I'd say "I'll wait", but you can't, so there is that.
 
Explain how a pre-trial settlement is legal "precedent". Here is the definition...b. Law A judicial decision that is binding on other equal or lower courts in the same jurisdiction as to its conclusion on a point of law, and may also be persuasive to courts in other jurisdictions, in subsequent cases involving sufficiently similar facts.

I'd say "I'll wait", but you can't, so there is that.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad the Gentle Reader.... "waited."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In October 2016, a Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of some victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against the manufacturer (Remington), the wholesale distributor, and the retailer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting. Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the suit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The families sued Remington in 2014, alleging it should be held partially responsible for the shooting because of its marketing strategy. A 2005 federal law protects many gun manufacturers from wrongful death lawsuits brought by family members -- but the marketing argument was a new approach.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But even that law had a couple of exceptions, including an exception saying that, if a gun manufacturer, for example, was found to have engaged in activity that are illegal, they could be subject to prosecution.
And the Connecticut state court ruled that this could proceed, this lawsuit could proceed, under that exception in the federal law. And now, of course, the Supreme Court has said that the lawsuit in Connecticut can go ahead, by not hearing the case appeal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ALBANY, N.Y. — Updated Nov. 2, 2021New York State lawmakers passed legislation on Tuesday intended to allow civil lawsuits to be brought against firearm manufacturers and dealers, an attempt to circumvent the broad immunity gun companies currently enjoy under federal law.

The bill, passed by the Democratic-controlled State Legislature, is the first of its kind in the nation to specifically classify the illegal or improper marketing or sale of guns as a nuisance — a technical classification that state lawmakers say would open the gun industry to civil liability suits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remington becomes first gun maker held liable for mass shooting after $73m settlement with Sandy Hook families. The lawsuit claimed Remington directed its marketing of the rifles towards young men
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Gentle Reader is invited to respond to how the Sandy Hook invocation of "marketing" -- and both the court and legislative actions that immediately followed ("suit" if you will) is not clear evidence of precedent set... and floodgates opened.
.
.
.
I will, of course... "wait."


.
 
Last edited:
Remington becomes first gun maker held liable for
Click to expand...
is absolutely false. But if you believe what you wrote, copied or otherwise, there is no reason to look at the facts again, as you will just write what you believe again. Good day.
 
I think we have semantics rearing its ugly head again. But, first, a reminder: some participants on this discussion are treading perilously close to violating forum rules regarding civil discourse. If you don't agree with what someone else posted, by all means disagree -- and do so by citing facts to rebut the other position. We don't need to engage in "Nyah, nyah" behavior on this forum.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled pedanticism: There are precedents, and there are precedents. The dictionary definition of precedent is:

Merriam-Webster said:
precedent noun
prec·​e·​dent | \ ˈpre-sə-dənt \

Definition of precedent (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
2a : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind a verdict that had no precedent
b : the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3 : a person or thing that serves as a model
Click to expand...
Used in this way, the fact that certain people were able to succeed in a lawsuit against a firearms manufacturer by claiming that their advertising was irresponsible, thereby sneaking around the PLCAA, can certainly be viewed as establishing an informal precedent ... as in now that they have succeeded, others may be inspired to attempt the same thing. But in another court, in another state, a similar lawsuit might not survive the initial challenge based on the PLCAA.

Which brings us to the other kind of precedent: legal precedent. The Sandy Hook case was settled out of court, so there was NO ruling by a judge or finding by a jury. Since the parties agreed to the settlement, there will be no appeal. This means that there will be no published opinion by a court at any level, so there is nothing that can be cited in another suit as binding legal precedent.

Remember, this case was brought and proceeded under Connecticut law, not federal law. The federal PLCAA law was brought in by the defendant (Remington) in an attempt to have the case dismissed but, once that failed, the case was again (still) a Connecticut case.

If this discussion is to remain open, I strongly urge anyone who wants to discuss precedent to clearly specify whether he is taking about generic precedent, or legal precedent.
 
That makes sense Aguila. It may still be a slippery slope for manufacturers and the 2A, but we’ll see. At least with the turn of events with our northern neighbors and Australia, people are seeing the original reason for the 2A, but I suspect, with this victory against Remington, the heat will only increase against what we still have and others gave up. We’ll see.
 
I think that is a stretch Aguila. A "non-legal" precedent, by your chosen definition, involves a measure of commonality. Or, as a model, convention, that will generally be accepted by the "common man" as such. That is not the case here, not even close.

Since we are talking about a "legal issue", the "common man" may rationally infer that the legal version of the word precedent is the one in use. If you really want to be pedantic, it would be more appropriate to focus the discussion to the general use and understanding of "legal precedent". Glossing over divergent verbiage with a pass for someone's misunderstanding of the facts always reminds me of our past POTUS inventing Clintonese by changing the common understanding of the word "is".
 
My head hurts....
(but my vison is very clear)

More & more anti-2A entities will use their Common Understanding of Precedent....
Financial death through a thousand nuisance lawsuits from every direction to flood the system.
... and states following the lead of NY and CN (et many al) to open the doors.
 
Until reality slaps them in the face and forces them to recognize it (and sometimes, not even then...) most people believe what the news tells them, the way the news tells it to them.

We can use any terms we choose. and we tend to choose terms that are correct, but the news,...doesn't.

What people are being told and what they are going to believe is that here. Victims "of the gun" sued the gunmaker, and WON!

And, if these people sued the gunmaker and won, then we might also.

Doesn't matter that what the gunmaker was sued about was BS, doesn't matter that there was no court ruling. Doesn't even matter that the gunmaker went out of business years ago. All the general public is hearing from the general press is "Gunmaker lost lawsuit paid millions to victim's families".

So, yes, I think more people will try this tactic in the future, and I know there are lawyers who will help them, because, win or lose, they will get paid.


The original judge threw the case out, said it lacked merit. The CN Supreme Court re-instated the suit, Under their ruling, the case should not have been dismissed but should have its day in court and the jury would decide if there was any validity to the claim.

Or so I heard. Now, we have a settlement, which admits no guilt, and the case did NOT have its day in court, it was settled out of court.

But what the news tells us and too many people believe is that Remington "lost" the lawsuit.

Gotta love accuracy in media...I wish we actually had some...:rolleyes:
 
MarkCO said:
I think that is a stretch Aguila. A "non-legal" precedent, by your chosen definition, involves a measure of commonality. Or, as a model, convention, that will generally be accepted by the "common man" as such. That is not the case here, not even close.

Since we are talking about a "legal issue", the "common man" may rationally infer that the legal version of the word precedent is the one in use. If you really want to be pedantic, it would be more appropriate to focus the discussion to the general use and understanding of "legal precedent". Glossing over divergent verbiage with a pass for someone's misunderstanding of the facts always reminds me of our past POTUS inventing Clintonese by changing the common understanding of the word "is".
Click to expand...
Mark, it's not my "chosen" definition, it's the dictionary definition.

In this thread, we have people arguing -- to the verge of calling each other names -- over whether or not the Sandy Hook Parents v. Remington case creates a precedent that may be damaging to gun manufacturers (and, by extension, to us) down the road. It appeared to me that two of the most vocal opponents in that discussion were talking apples to oranges: one speaking about "precedent" in the everyday, dictionary sense and the other using the term as it applies to legal precedent.

All I intended was to get everybody on the same page. If this discussion continues, anyone who wants to discuss "precedent" should be clear as to which type of precedent he/she is talking about. It may appear crystal clear to you that 'the "common man' may rationally infer that the legal version of the word precedent is the one in use," but that isn't crystal clear to me. If we get people acting snotty toward other members over differing understandings and uses of the word "precedent," we'll close the discussion down.
 
The CN Supreme Court re-instated the suit, Under their ruling, the case should not have been dismissed but should have its day in court and the jury would decide if there was any validity to the claim.
Click to expand...

Is this not precedent ? Can't CN courts now use that ruling to force new cases to move forward ? In fact if it is local precedent they MUST allow the cases to go forward correct ?

Does anyone have a link to that ruling ? I'd like to see how the judge/s concluded the marketing ( which ever was claimed to be the offending add ) had merit and how it side stepped PLCAA law ?
 
Is this not precedent ? Can't CN courts now use that ruling to force new cases to move forward ? In fact if it is local precedent they MUST allow the cases to go forward correct ?
Click to expand...

Am not a lawyer and probably have this a bit wrong, but my understanding is that precedent in case law is not chiseled in stone holy writ.

Its what was done before, what precedes the current case, and something that must be considered, as it provides a possible path, but its not quite law, and while its something required to be considered, its not something required to be followed.

If there is an argument deemed sufficiently compelling, existing precedent can be set aside. It rarely is, but it CAN be.

legal eagles, if I'm wrong, please enlighten me...
 
Mark, it's not my "chosen" definition, it's the dictionary definition.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. There are a LOT of dictionaries. Each has some etymological perspective they follow. When you "choose" a definition, you select the bias you prefer in the definition you choose to use. It is a very classic tactic lawyers use to sway the argument in the direction they want it to go.
 
We asked that members wishing to discuss "precedent" in this thread be clear as to whether they are speaking about common, ordinary, everyday precedent, or legal precedent. There have been posts since that was requested (posts which may or may not have been deleted or edited) that went right ahead and mentioned "precedent" without specifying in which context the word was being used. Since the difference apparently becomes contentious, the thread has been closed because the request to be clear in communication was ignored.
 
Let me add to Aguila Blanca's comments that in real life in the real world the ordinary, casual precedential (in contrast to a legal precedent) effect of a settlement like this is sort of a non-issue.

Most of these types of lawsuits are settled, so in the scheme of things one more settlement is pretty much business as usual. There are a number of reasons for this, including the facts that: (1) litigation distracts from the commercial defendant's core, business activities; and (2) a bad outcome can lead to actual, undesirable, legal precedent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top