Remembering TCPaul, 2016-2019

Sandy Hook Lawsuit to Go Forward

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news /nation/2019/03/14/sandy- anotherjd03/14/19
This Connecticut gun case is fantastic news. Sandy hook pare frida203/14/19
I am a Liberal and I support this lawsuit of surviving membe theimmigrant03/14/19
They would have to prove the advertising caused the injuries jorgedeclaro03/14/19
big tobacco got sued too. should a warning label be on kenco03/14/19
Runaway Jury the book was about tobacco while the movie was jorgedeclaro03/14/19
This is not sane. wutwutwut03/14/19
Anti-gun folks... I have some questions... When the ba wearyattorney03/15/19
Seriously, get help before it’s too late. whatnext03/15/19
Where am I going wrong or do you not think a next series of wearyattorney03/15/19
Weird that you thought that was the part of the post that yo thirdtierlaw03/15/19
Britain is a surveillance state and becoming increasingly mo wearyattorney03/15/19
Why wasn't option 2 exercised after TARP in 2008? goldenrule03/15/19
That’s a great question. That’s when the T-party got go wearyattorney03/15/19
Seems like the court is saying “if you can prove the adver rastaman03/15/19
Because the federal law has exclusions from the immunity pro jorgedeclaro03/15/19
A successful lawsuit would put this struggling, 200+ year ol plumber03/15/19
The ruling is from the Supreme Court of Connecticut. They sa frida203/15/19
Ok. So this has nothing to do with the Fed law passed in 200 rastaman03/15/19
Fun fact: a Republican appointed justice authored the majori actionbronson03/15/19
Uniparty, just uniparty. plumber03/15/19
Conservative values! triplesix03/15/19
While I'm not suggesting that the interests of the two major actionbronson03/15/19
I’m a bit confused. The court said that if they plaintiffs irishlaw03/15/19
They will survive a R12. Unsure on R56, Ds need to get some vohod03/15/19



anotherjd (Mar 14, 2019 - 9:47 pm)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/14/sandy-hook-shooting-gunmaker-remington-can-sued-court-rules/3162168002

Didn't the kid kill his mom and steal her gun? How is the gun manufacturer responsible? How would their marketing of the firearm in this case be relevant given the way the kid got the gun?

Reply
frida2 (Mar 14, 2019 - 9:56 pm)

This Connecticut gun case is fantastic news. Sandy hook parents will be able to sue for the wrongful death of their kids.

It's going to go to a jury trial too.

If he read the advertisements, it doesn't matter how he got the gun. Doesn't matter anyway. Maybe his mom saw the advertisements?

It's like if you market a car (a legal item) for running people over (an illegal activity). Seems like a no brainer.

CT Supreme Court: Sandy Hook families can state wrongful death claim against Bushmaster under theory the defendant advertised guns could be used by "civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies." https://t.co/1rtrLNVFj5

https://apnews.com/a4b101a04dc9469999880a61280fd0da?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=APEastRegion&utm_source=Twitter

Reply
theimmigrant (Mar 14, 2019 - 10:09 pm)

I am a Liberal and I support this lawsuit of surviving members of the (((Lanza))) family

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Mar 14, 2019 - 11:21 pm)

They would have to prove the advertising caused the injuries. Everything else got dumped. They will lose on summary judgment in all likelihood.

Reply
kenco (Mar 14, 2019 - 11:30 pm)

big tobacco got sued too.

should a warning label be on all guns?

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Mar 14, 2019 - 11:45 pm)

Runaway Jury the book was about tobacco while the movie was about guns. Interestingly, the “fingerprint resistant” advertisement in that movie is a stranger than fiction thing about an actual case that happened in California.

Reply
wutwutwut (Mar 14, 2019 - 11:34 pm)

This is not sane.

Reply
wearyattorney (Mar 15, 2019 - 12:07 am)

Anti-gun folks...

I have some questions...

When the bankers initiate ITE2 and President BETO bails them out by initiating some carbon tax programs at the major investment banks (staffed by highly qualified USC graduates and others of that type), let’s run through scenarios and you tell me which will end better:

1) Gun control prevailed. Peope start peacefully protesting and causing mass demonstrations nationally that dramatically disturbs the day to day operations of the country. Mayor Libtard, Count Executive Rhino, and/or Superindent Commie call over the local police captains and ask the following question: “Do you and your friends want to retire at 45 with full pensions or do you want to give the private sector a go?” Captain McAllister and Captain Johnson look at each other, respond “What do you want us to do?” Mayor Libtard, Count Executive Rhino respond: “Crack some heads and put some people in line or resign and get a job. Security guards make like 20 dollars an hour FYI.”

How do you think option 1 goes down?

2) Gun control fails. Some heavily armed milita members from the Southern half of this country, including Texas, and upstate New York start making their way to Washington and New York City to “discuss” the constitutionality of the govenremnt’s course of action with our “elected” representatives.

I like option 2. I like it enough that I’m willing to deal with collateral damage such as school shootings. The march back to feudalism will probably kill more children in a week than every single mass shooting in the history of the US when things really start going.

Reply
whatnext (Mar 15, 2019 - 12:11 am)

Seriously, get help before it’s too late.

Reply
wearyattorney (Mar 15, 2019 - 12:18 am)

Where am I going wrong or do you not think a next series of bailouts isn’t in the cards followed by even more pain for 99 percent of the country?

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Mar 15, 2019 - 8:18 am)

Weird that you thought that was the part of the post that you thought the poster thinks is controversial.

The gun toting caravans marching on DC to overthrow the government after gun control is implemented is a common fantasy that is heard by gun fanatics, yet it has never been observed in any country that has implemented meaningful gun control.

We've also not seen a massive deevolution to feudalism in those countries, or at least anymore than we've already seen in the US.

There is likely to be another economic crash and maybe bailouts. But there is no nexus to those two things and your gun toting freedom fighting fantasy.

Reply
wearyattorney (Mar 15, 2019 - 4:05 pm)

Britain is a surveillance state and becoming increasingly more totalitarian in nature.

Things happen gradually and then suddenly. Wait a while.

If you think a disarmed population is going to be able to stand up to the current cadre of criminals running this country, you are dreaming.

This country was founded on the basis of rebellion and Jefferson said the tree of liberty needs refreshing every now and then for a reason.

Reply
goldenrule (Mar 15, 2019 - 12:17 am)

Why wasn't option 2 exercised after TARP in 2008?

Reply
wearyattorney (Mar 15, 2019 - 12:19 am)

That’s a great question. That’s when the T-party got going though, but people still believed in the political process. I doubt people will still have faith in it if things go south again though.

Reply
rastaman (Mar 15, 2019 - 1:15 am)

Seems like the court is saying “if you can prove the advertising causes the injury, that’s somehow exempt from the statute”. I’m confused on the courts reasoning. Was it a seventh amendment decision? Isnt this in state court? How does supremacy clause not take affect?

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Mar 15, 2019 - 9:49 am)

Because the federal law has exclusions from the immunity provision and the Connecticut court said one of those exclusions applies to this claim. Doesn’t mean the Connecticut court was right, but that’s what they ruled.

Sometimes courts get stuff wrong. Sometimes they get stuff wrong on purpose to achieve a desired result. One of the federal circuits made a terrible decision yesterday that will have a strong negative impact on one of my cases just because they didn’t like the guy.

Reply
plumber (Mar 15, 2019 - 8:38 am)

A successful lawsuit would put this struggling, 200+ year old Heritage American company right out of business (they just got out of bankruptcy). It would then open up the door to other lawsuits against firearm manufacturers, putting them all out of business and effectively destroying the ability to purchase American made firearms. That is the goal.

Reply
frida2 (Mar 15, 2019 - 9:04 am)

The ruling is from the Supreme Court of Connecticut. They said that the unfair trade practices (bad
advertising) claim can survive only, because that is under state law and not covered by the federal law that protects gun manufacturers.

Reply
rastaman (Mar 15, 2019 - 8:12 pm)

Ok. So this has nothing to do with the Fed law passed in 2005?

Reply
actionbronson (Mar 15, 2019 - 12:25 pm)

Fun fact: a Republican appointed justice authored the majority opinion while Democrat appointee wrote the dissent.

Reply
plumber (Mar 15, 2019 - 12:26 pm)

Uniparty, just uniparty.

Reply
triplesix (Mar 15, 2019 - 12:28 pm)

Conservative values!

Reply
actionbronson (Mar 15, 2019 - 12:31 pm)

While I'm not suggesting that the interests of the two major parties in the US don't converge on many issues, I fail to see how this decision is an example of that phenomenon. The general public at large assumes that judges at every level make decisions based on politics and loyalty to the people that got them there, but seriously, most of the time they are interpreting and applying the law as they see it. They can be wrong in their interpretation for sure, but most of the time it isn't because of their political affiliations.

Reply
irishlaw (Mar 15, 2019 - 1:25 pm)

I’m a bit confused. The court said that if they plaintiffs can claim the advertisement was the proximiate cause they can recover?

Is this some sort of negligent advertisement argument?

Anyways I don’t think ive ever seen a gun advertisement outside of a gun store or hunting magazine. I’m assuming the plaitiffs will have to prove that the shooter actually saw an advertisement?

Reply
vohod (Mar 15, 2019 - 8:15 pm)

They will survive a R12. Unsure on R56, Ds need to get some serious Depos in hand to win on MSJ.


Stfu weary, plumber, and other fairytale lawyers who don’t practice. You are little urethraed boys trying to piss among Big Dicks.

Reply
Post a message in this thread