From the lawsuit filed in court:
"The AR-15 rifle, designed as a lightweight but fearsome combat weapon for troops in Vietnam, can expel 30 bullets in a matter of seconds, each of which is capable of piercing body armor and causing catastrophic injury. It has no place among Americans' handguns and hunting rifles."
They want all AR-15's banned.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/15/news/companies/sandy-hook-bushmaster-newtown-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
:o
So, I don't know what tactic the defense team for Bushmaster will take, but here is the obvious flaw I see in their contention that Bushmaster is responsible for this monster having access to the gun.
He killed his own mother to get it.
Say no civilians had an AR-15. If they guy was willing to kill his mother to get the gun, would he have had any compunction about killing a police officer to get an AR-15? I don't think so.
My heart goes out to these families. As a father of six, I can imagine the pain, but can't imagine how you go on with that pain. I hope they eventually find a way to cope. I think this lawsuit if probably motivated out of grief on the part of the families. But I fear they won't find the balm they seek either in victory or defeat.
There is legal precedent for this. Bushmaster and others will be fine. The suit will probably be dropped.
The school district might lose a civil suit to the families, though.
They will settle, do not need the bad press
Quote from: Wolfie on December 16 2014 10:12:26 AM MST
They will settle, do not need the bad press
That would be a big mistake. They would essentially be admitting AR-15's are military weapons only, and will only fuel the anti-gun crowd.
Sometimes its cheaper.
Not saying its right, they should sue the father as he is wealthy.
Out of court settlements in civil law do not establish precedent.
This will help sale of the black rifles, and make .223, 7.62 NATO, and similar ammo difficult to get due to huge demand.
Deja Vu all over again!!!
Greg
As the parent of two boys, I can't imagine what these victim's parents went through (still). It is too bad they are being led down the path of lashing out at everything that was in no way relevant to the actual event crime. The shooter could have chosen to drive a car into an auditorium and taken out WAYYYY more than bullets.
Let's have Roseanne and Rosie O'Donnel sue the spoon companies for making them fat.............
Pat
Or all the car companies for car related deaths.
Doug
Quote from: ShadeTreeVTX on December 17 2014 09:45:12 AM MST
Or all the car companies for car related deaths.
Doug
Not all the car companies. Just ones that make cars with high capacity gas tanks and passenger compartments that have no place on our civilian highways. Like my suburban.
Doubt this will help sales, I think everyone is stocked up by now.
In fact gun sales are down.
November 28, 2014 (Black Friday) 2nd most firearm purchase background checks in 1 day EVER. Over 175k and second only to Dec. 21 2014. Consequently the largest "Black Friday" total EVER.
How many guns and ammo are people going to buy?
Gun sales are still down from last year.
Down for the year perhaps, but if black friday number say anything it is that the market has found a new higher equilibirium. Im in cali and have female coworkers buying guns for the first time. If we are doing it behind enemy lines y'all should be doing it too. Also more people are getting carry permits driving small gun sales. Im surprised when 50% of adults in free states DONT have a carry permit and itis actually 3-10%. That number is inching up, slowly.
I also have seen more women get into the sport.
But lets face it, being a gun enthusiast is expensive.
Next year sales will go down and ramp back up in 16 when Hillary wins.
Quote from: Wolfie on December 16 2014 10:12:26 AM MST
They will settle, do not need the bad press
They probably won't need to.
It doesn't appear Bushmaster violated any of the exceptions to the legislation that protects them. They should be fine. If they want to throw some money to the victims, more power to them. They still have to defend until they are dismissed. They could offer the amount they would spend up to dismissal, if they would let them out of the suit now.
I'm a bit confused. Wasn't there a law passed to STOP this kind of nuisance lawsuit against gun manufacturers? What is the difference where they can even file this lawsuit. :-\
From Wikipedia
In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence 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, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.
I stopped feeling sorry for these people a long time ago. They've allowed themselves to be political pawns in a antigun media/propaganda campaign since the incident occurred. It sucks what happened to their kids but they can go to hell at this point in time.
Back after the Beltway snipers got caught shooting people out of the trunk of their car Bushmaster capitulated and paid, ...dearly.
There was a law passed shortly after that that was supposed to prevent this type of suit/settlement from ever happening again.
I recall the Beltway Snipers were collared, was anyone arrested for the Anthrax?
Quote from: Wolfie on December 20 2014 04:44:30 PM MST
I recall the Beltway Snipers were collared, was anyone arrested for the Anthrax?
Last I thought I heard was the guy they suspected of doing it died.
The lawsuit will help some hidden facts about this case come to light. Like how a reported punk kid did something a trained Seal would be busy doing. The case is odd, and lots of people are figuring out, things do not add up correctly.
Quote from: gandog56 on December 19 2014 12:24:16 PM MST
I'm a bit confused. Wasn't there a law passed to STOP this kind of nuisance lawsuit against gun manufacturers? What is the difference where they can even file this lawsuit. :-\
From Wikipedia
In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence 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, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.
You are correct....but it doesn't prevent the plaintiff from filing these nuisance suits. The exception where they can be sued is if the gun is defective and/or they assisted in selling the guns through bogus/unscrupulous dealers. I'm paraphrasing, of course.
Here's hoping they don't get an Obozo appointed Lib judge, and he throws it out and fines the losers court costs!
As I suspected, they've also decided to file suit against Newtown citing lack of security.
Quote from: redbaron007 on December 23 2014 02:26:33 PM MST
Quote from: gandog56 on December 19 2014 12:24:16 PM MST
I'm a bit confused. Wasn't there a law passed to STOP this kind of nuisance lawsuit against gun manufacturers? What is the difference where they can even file this lawsuit. :-\
From Wikipedia
In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence 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, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.
You are correct....but it doesn't prevent the plaintiff from filing these nuisance suits. The exception where they can be sued is if the gun is defective and/or they assisted in selling the guns through bogus/unscrupulous dealers. I'm paraphrasing, of course.
Which brings me right back to how can they even do this? I thought the law was passed to stop this exact thing.
Quote from: gandog56 on January 13 2015 08:11:43 AM MST
Quote from: redbaron007 on December 23 2014 02:26:33 PM MST
Quote from: gandog56 on December 19 2014 12:24:16 PM MST
I'm a bit confused. Wasn't there a law passed to STOP this kind of nuisance lawsuit against gun manufacturers? What is the difference where they can even file this lawsuit. :-\
From Wikipedia
In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence 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, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.
You are correct....but it doesn't prevent the plaintiff from filing these nuisance suits. The exception where they can be sued is if the gun is defective and/or they assisted in selling the guns through bogus/unscrupulous dealers. I'm paraphrasing, of course.
Which brings me right back to how can they even do this? I thought the law was passed to stop this exact thing.
The laws doesn't prevent suits....it provides a defense. There are very few laws that prevent suits. you can sue the government, it won't go anywhere unless they allow it....bottom line, it doesn't stop the suits, just provides a defense and avenue to dismiss the suit...which will probably happen.
The first lawsuit, the one against Bushmaster-
{Snip from the Hartford Courant}
The lawsuit is the second one filed since the shooting. The first one against the gun manufacturer, filed at Superior Court in Bridgeport, claims that the Bushmaster AR-15 used by Lanza in the shooting should not be sold to the public because it is a military assault weapon designed for war.
Ten families, including the Pozner and Lewis families, and one of the teachers who was shot and survived are involved in the lawsuit.
That lawsuit will attempt to use what is known as the negligent entrustment exemption. In a negligent entrustment case, a party can be held liable for entrusting a product, in this case the Bushmaster rifle, to another party who then causes harm to a third party.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I can't imagine it will go anywhere. Negligent entrustment really doesn't apply because Bushmaster didn't convey the firearm to Lanza. They conveyed ownership to a distributor, who conveyed ownership to a retailer, who conveyed ownership to Lanza's mother. She was deceased when the gun was stolen from her.
I gotta think this case is gonna get tossed summarily.
Quote from: sqlbullet on January 13 2015 09:21:23 AM MST
I gotta think this case is gonna get tossed summarily.
I agree.
The new lawsuit-
{Snip from Hartford Courant}
At least two families of victims in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have filed a lawsuit against the town of Newtown and the school board, alleging lax security on the day 20 first-graders and six adults were shot and killed...................
The plaintiffs are the estates of slain students Noah Pozner and Jesse Lewis. The children's parents, Leonard Pozner, Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, are the administrators. The families are represented by Norwalk attorney Donald Papcsy, a Sandy Hook resident, who could not be reached for comment Monday..............
(After Lanza shot his way into the school and killed the principle and school psychologist he went to classrooms.....)
In one of those classrooms, substitute teacher Lauren Rousseau was unable to lock the door because she did not have a key......
The lawsuit alleges that Rousseau (A substitute teacher) "had neither a key to lock the door nor any knowledge of the ... safety and security protocols rehearsed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in case an intruder or other dangerous individual gained access to the school."
The lawsuit also alleges the town was negligent in not having a more secure entrance way to the school because it did not have bulletproof glass on the front windows and for having doors that couldn't be locked from the inside.
The lawsuit also questions the lack of security in the parking lot area. Lanza parked his car at the curb near the front entrance of the school, less than 100 feet from the entrance............
Town Attorney David Grogins acknowledged that the lawsuit has been filed, but declined to comment on it Monday. The lawsuit is seeking more than $15,000 in damages.
The lawsuit names the town, school board and Sandy Hook Principal Kathleen Gombos, who is erroneously referred to as Sandy Gombos. The lawsuit also inaccurately names the school superintendent.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote from: Rich10 on January 13 2015 08:46:38 AM MST
The first lawsuit, the one against Bushmaster-
{Snip from the Hartford Courant}
The lawsuit is the second one filed since the shooting. The first one against the gun manufacturer, filed at Superior Court in Bridgeport, claims that the Bushmaster AR-15 used by Lanza in the shooting should not be sold to the public because it is a military assault weapon designed for war.
Ten families, including the Pozner and Lewis families, and one of the teachers who was shot and survived are involved in the lawsuit.
That lawsuit will attempt to use what is known as the negligent entrustment exemption. In a negligent entrustment case, a party can be held liable for entrusting a product, in this case the Bushmaster rifle, to another party who then causes harm to a third party.
You hit the nail on the head.......The plaintiffs will struggle in making any connection to Bushmaster for negligent entrustment. If Bushmaster distributed the guns through a licensed dealer, with no knowledge of alleged improprieties by the dealer, then it should/will be dismissed.
Part of the suit does bring up some conversations about the firearm appearing to be a weapon of war and should not be distributed to the public is interesting to say the least. Albeit, it is a legal firearm for lawful sale to the public....it will be interesting to see how it is argued in court.
Quote from: Rich10 on January 13 2015 10:19:13 AM MST
The new lawsuit-
{Snip from Hartford Courant}
At least two families of victims in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have filed a lawsuit against the town of Newtown and the school board, alleging lax security on the day 20 first-graders and six adults were shot and killed...................
The plaintiffs are the estates of slain students Noah Pozner and Jesse Lewis. The children's parents, Leonard Pozner, Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, are the administrators. The families are represented by Norwalk attorney Donald Papcsy, a Sandy Hook resident, who could not be reached for comment Monday..............
(After Lanza shot his way into the school and killed the principle and school psychologist he went to classrooms.....)
In one of those classrooms, substitute teacher Lauren Rousseau was unable to lock the door because she did not have a key......
The lawsuit alleges that Rousseau (A substitute teacher) "had neither a key to lock the door nor any knowledge of the ... safety and security protocols rehearsed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in case an intruder or other dangerous individual gained access to the school."
The lawsuit also alleges the town was negligent in not having a more secure entrance way to the school because it did not have bulletproof glass on the front windows and for having doors that couldn't be locked from the inside.
The lawsuit also questions the lack of security in the parking lot area. Lanza parked his car at the curb near the front entrance of the school, less than 100 feet from the entrance............
Town Attorney David Grogins acknowledged that the lawsuit has been filed, but declined to comment on it Monday. The lawsuit is seeking more than $15,000 in damages.
The lawsuit names the town, school board and Sandy Hook Principal Kathleen Gombos, who is erroneously referred to as Sandy Gombos. The lawsuit also inaccurately names the school superintendent.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So what do they want? Every single school to be as secure as a prison? This is why I think all lawyers should be shot. Who talked them into this foolishness?
I love my state. I just find out which teachers have a CCW and carry and then try to get my kids in their classes. Add to it the other school staff and incidental parents on campus with ccw, and heaven help the idiot that decides to shoot up a school.
Quote from: gandog56 on January 14 2015 09:15:53 AM MST
Quote from: Rich10 on January 13 2015 10:19:13 AM MST
The lawsuit alleges that Rousseau (A substitute teacher) "had neither a key to lock the door nor any knowledge of the ... safety and security protocols .......
The lawsuit also alleges the town was negligent in not having a more secure entrance way to the school ....
The lawsuit also questions the lack of security in the parking lot area. Lanza parked his car at the curb near the front entrance of the school, less than 100 feet from the entrance............
Town Attorney David Grogins acknowledged that the lawsuit has been filed, but declined to comment on it Monday. The lawsuit is seeking more than $15,000 in damages.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So what do they want? Every single school to be as secure as a prison? This is why I think all lawyers should be shot. Who talked them into this foolishness?
What do they want?? Well, at least $15k....... I don't know, man. I'm guessing they're liberals. That means they want
it all. They want complete security (which is impossible) but don't want real solutions or personal accountability.
Real security is a gun!