Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Blaming Remington For Sandy Hook Massacre

[aikoaiko]

For potential jurists/hosts:
News stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about efforts to strengthen or weaken gun control legislation in any jurisdiction in the United States, national news stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about high-profile gun crimes, and viral political content from social media or blogs that would likely be of interest to a large majority of DU members are permitted under normal circumstances.

“

Based on the clear intent of Congress to narrowly define the `negligent entrustment’ exception, Adam Lanza’s use of the firearm is the only actionable use,” she wrote. Therefore none of the people the defendants actually entrusted the gun to “used” it to commit a crime.

The judge also rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to slip their claims in under Connecticut’s consumer protection law, saying that law is limited to lawsuits where the plaintiff had some business relationship with the defendant.

And she rejected their product-liability claims, because the gun most definitely worked as intended.

The dismissal puts an end to an innovative attempt to get around the PLCAA, which Congress passed to thwart lawsuits against gun manufacturers over the crimes committed with their products. Judge Bellis allowed the case to proceed longer than might have been expected, given the clear conflict with the PLCAA, and even mused that there might be a comparison to cigarette litigation at a June hearing on Remington’s motion to dismiss.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/10/14/connecticut-judge-dismisses-sandy-hook-massacre-lawsuit-against-remington/2/#a7079a18dce1

Here is the 54-page ruling from Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis for those who prefer primary sources:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=11214676

[Duckhunter935]

1. A good result

Chevy should not be sued for the misuse of their legal product either.

[Kingofalldems]

2. The purpose of a gun is to kill.

Chevys are made to drive.

[Duckhunter935]

5. The purpose of a firearm

Is to safely fire a projectile for the user. It is the user that is responsible where that projectile ends up. Firearms are legal and can only be sold be federally licensed dealers. There are many warnings in all users manuals put in by the firearms manufacturers. Chevy is not liable if a person decided to misuse that vehicle and use it to mow down a crowd of people on the sidewalk.

[Kingofalldems]

9. Not even close. The purpose of a firearm's projectile is to kill. Fact.

The NRA agrees with you by the way.

[hack89]

17. Yet so few guns are actually used to kill anything

It is almost as if people have found other uses for their guns besides killing.

Perhaps if we focus on the user instead of the object we can come to agreement on how to further reduce gun deaths.

[hack89]

7. But Chevys still kill a lot of people if used improperly

The actions of the user are what matters.

[Duckhunter935]

12. Seems some don't care for that small important point

[ileus]

10. Except mine, their purpose is to save lives.

At least my self defense one are...

[Marengo]

14. A Renault truck, being driven, killed 86 in Nice. Should Renault be sued?

[Duckhunter935]

16. According to several here, yes sadly

[Thor_MN]

3. "the gun most definitely worked as intended."

Did the judge not define firearms as objects designed to kill here? I see that argued frequently, if the purpose of a firearm is to kill or not.

[aikoaiko]

8. No. The judge defined firearms as machines designed to shoot bullets.

The target of those bullets is the choice of the shooter.

[Thor_MN]

15. In this case, that target was school children.

The judge said that the weapon clearly worked as intended, therefore it worked to kill.

The judge was not talking about your arbitrary situation, the topic was school children being murdered.

I'm not arguing if the decision is good or bad, I'm saying that the judge potentially opened a door on that argument.

[Duckhunter935]

18. I disagree

The firearm functioned as it was designed, to fire a projectile out the barrel without injuring the operator. The person aiming that weapon is solely responsible for who he aims it at, sadly in this case children and teachers.

[Thor_MN]

21. Neither of our opinions matter to set legal precedent.

I have read enough over the years to know that you will reliably defend firearms. That's a given.

The point I raise is that the judge, in this case, where we both agree that the target was school children, said that the weapon worked as intended.

I know that you will bend that in your mind in whatever way possible to defend firearms. Our opinions don't matter towards legal precedent. The judge's does.

[Duckhunter935]

23. I agree with the judge

[cleanhippie]

28. By your logic, the truck that killed 80 in Nice also "worked as intended"

Should Renault be sued for making a truck that "worked as intended" by the user?

Your argument is full of holes.

[aikoaiko]

20. I don't think the issue was whether the product could be used to kill people.

The issue was whether or not the product functioned as intended and designed. Again, the target was the choice of the shooter and not the manufacturer.

[Thor_MN]

22. See #21, minus the history...

I haven't read enough of your posts to know what your mind set. Ducky will defend firearms to his or her last breath.

[Duckhunter935]

25. Not really

But thanks for putting words in my mouth

[aikoaiko]

26. I agree that its the judge's ruling that matters.

If you want to read was discussed on the matter see:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=11214676

Read the section on the Exclusivity Provision of the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA) on pages 49 - 52. This section shows that the issue is not whether guns; intended used is to kill. It ends:
[IMG][/IMG]

FWIW: I generally agree with Duckhunter's posts.

[cleanhippie]

29. Your tactic of attempting to smear a poster when your argument falls apart is your history.

[Thor_MN]

31. I'm not smearing anyone, just stating facts

If your claim was true, you would be quite hypocritical.

Interesting that you believe defending firearms has a negative connotation...

[Duckhunter935]

24. Very true statement

[hack89]

4. Not a surprise. Nt

[Duckhunter935]

6. I agree

Many people have said that

[aikoaiko]

11. Not a surprise, but plaintiffs were given every opportunity to make their case...

...before the judge instead of being dismissed immediately.

This judge was especially considerate of the plaintiffs arguments and still the outcome was the expected outcome.

[Duckhunter935]

19. Very true

[NaturalHigh]

13. Not at all. Absolutely the correct decision.

[Hoyt]

27. Thank you White Jesus. Gun fanciers are relieved that their pipe line of guns will not be impeded.

At least for now.

http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/c_limit,w_680/f_auto,fl_progressive,pg_1,q_auto/dtf7tnfmrenm0fy6x08e.jpg

[aikoaiko]

32. Is "impeding the pipeline of guns" the goal of these types of lawsuits.

You're dropping the veil. You're supposed to say that they are about making guns safer.

[Hoyt]

33. That's obviously you gunners fear. You darn sure don't care about the kids, spouses, innocents that

get killed, wounded intimidated by those who train to shoot folks. The suit should punish the greedy bastards that profit from guns, just like any other suit like this.

[aikoaiko]

34. Gun safety, Hoyt. You're supposed to talk about gun safety.

[Hoyt]

35. The ultimate gun safety is for you guys to quit promothing more gunz in more places and

NRA nonsense.

[Calculating]

30. The correct decision

Guns are designed to kill in justifiable circumstances such as self defense. Killing a bunch of school kids fails to qualify as a justifiable shooting, and therefore the gun was misused. Manufacturers shouldn't be held liable for product misuse.