Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook families' lawsuit against gunmaker proceed

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-lets-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gunmaker-proceed

If the sandy Hook parents prevail in their case against Remington Arms we could see a storm of such lawsuits against gun manufacturers. I would like to believe that the court will be reasonable and the parents will not prevail. Such a lawsuit if won could destroyer gun industry.
I am perplexed why the court made that decision since we have products liability laws which allows torts if a product does not do what it was intended to do. Or if it malfunctions.
The gun that the sandy Hook killer used unfortunately did what he intended it to do.... what it was designed to do ........ it killed and did so efficiently. In products liability cases if the product does what the manufacturers indented it do there is no liability. I must sound "cruel " so some here that that is the law. Case dismissed.

I had mentioned it before that I live 18 minutes down the highway from Newtown and of course am still horrified at what happened. But our feeling cannot replace the law.

Any else agree with me?

 

NOPE!

 

Its not cruel. Remington is not responsible for the actions of this murderer. There was nothing they did, and nothing they could have done that would have made a difference. When a law enforcement officer uses a Remington product to protect the public from a bad guy using a S&W product, what could either manufacturer do or not do to alter the outcome?

What we have here is a tragedy combined with lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes.

 

You may as well sue Ford for what drunk drivers operating their cars do.

 

Here is the flaw in their suit..

I don't know of any direct sales from the Remington manufacturer! Guns are generally sold by independent distributors of Remington firearms.. It would be the same as suing FMC because someone in a Ford product hit your car and some of your family died in the accident..

I cant even believe it "The article" was even aired with that silly wordage.. But whatever..

 

Absurd and stupid decision, whats next if someone stabs you with a Schrade Uncle Henry knife you can sue Schrade. If someone runs you over with their car, you can sue Ford. If someone hits you with a bat you can sue Louisville Slugger. Seriously the worlds gone stupid

 

Second or third thread on the same topic.
Let the suit begin. It will be crushed on so many fronts if the case is settled in favor of the parents. The only one winning here are the lawyers.

 

How much time and money will be wasted on this lawsuit?

 

It will go nowhere..

 

The lawyers won't be thinking it's a waste....

 

Go right ahead.

Remington is not responsible for it's product being used for an illegal purpose.

I did have a good laugh at your mental construct of Remington intending it to be used in a mass shooting though.

That must have took a lot of effort to suspend disbelief that much.

 

Will never happen. Would open the flood gates to any manufacturer of anything that could cause bodily harm when used incorrectly. Autos, bats, scissors, knives. Everything. You could sue Ford for running over your own cat or Nike for twisting your ankle while wearing their shoes.

 

That's exactly the kind of world they want.

 

It will never be ruled in favor of the families.. Just imagine the precedence it would create?

 

A land ruled by the emotion of the day is the dream of every leftist.

At least they think that's what they want. God help them if they ever get it.

 

Manufacturers of dangerous things (e.g., pain pills) can get into a whole lot of trouble, even if their products have legitimate uses.

 

Sure.

If they participate in false marketing like telling people they're not addictive, or if they manufacture a defective product.

Using a product illegally is never the fault of the manufacturer.

 

I did say mass shooting in any way. I also did not say anything about Remington being resposible for illegal use.
From a products liability perspective when I worked in the property casualty insurance field our defenses were did the product perform within the specifications. Was it used it the manner and purpose for which it was intended.

I was not being glib when I said that the rifle performed in the way it was designed for. A gun is primary designed to kill something. Killing human except in self defense or defense of others is not illegal. That is a fact. Now it is not designed to perform illegal killing, right! Mass murder is illegal so the Sandy Hook killer used that gun for an illegal purpose.
Not Remington's responsibility.

Case dismissed!

 

Are mass shootings legal and or a Constitutionally protected right?

A gun is designed for legal purposes, and sold to be used for legal purposes.

I.E Self defense, hunting, target shooting, and any other lawful usage of a firearm.

Using a firearm to commit mass murder is no more a responsibility of the manufacturer than plowing into a crowd with a Pinto.

 

Pain pills are sold as "Safe and effective"

 

That has been attempted.

 

They have.

 

No, they come with a disclaimer and a warning..

 

Not to be a wise ass but mass shooting in self defense is legal and a Constitutionally protected right. Example: You innocently piss off a large number of your neighbors. They conduct a mass assault at your house. Theybarevarmed with hand guns and torches to start a fire. You are smart enough to have a dormer better on your second floor with a 180 * field of clear fire range. You have enough mags with good capacity and at least two rifles and you are a good shot. You manage to kill 25 of the little bastards who attacked you.

Case of legal mass shooting.

Happens in almost all apocalyptic books I read.

 

They are deemed "safe and effective" by the FDA prior to being sold. Every firearm I have ever purchased came with a warning. (Something about keeping the business end pointed in a safe direction!)