Gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster

[TX_92_Notch]

court rules gun maker can be sued over newtown shooting

HARTFORD, Conn. — Gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

The plaintiffs include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter Adam Lanza is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people.

Remington has denied wrongdoing and previously insisted it can't be sued under the federal law.

The majority of the high court agreed with most of the lower court's ruling and dismissed most of the lawsuit's allegations, but allowed a wrongful marketing claim to proceed.

"The regulation of advertising that threatens the public's health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states' police powers," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.

[TX_92_Notch]

So does this mean every person killed by a drunk driver can now sue the auto manufacturer, beer manufacturer, and so on?

This is a dangerous precedent!!

[soap]

So does this mean every person killed by a drunk driver can now sue the auto manufacturer, beer manufacturer, and so on?

This is a dangerous precedent!!

My thoughts exactly.

[Big A]

So does this mean every person killed by a drunk driver can now sue the auto manufacturer, beer manufacturer, and so on?

This is a dangerous precedent!!

That specific litigation was shut down, so no. What could happen is that Budweiser could be sued for showing commercials that glorify under-aged drinking, in the event that a young drunk driver takes out themselves and a minivan with a family of 5 inside.

I haven't seen the commercial(s) or ads in question, but I don't have an issue with the premise of the suit that is being allowed.

[TX_92_Notch]

That specific litigation was shut down, so no. What could happen is that Budweiser could be sued for showing commercials that glorify under-aged drinking, in the event that a young drunk driver takes out themselves and a minivan with a family of 5 inside.

I haven't seen the commercial(s) or ads in question, but I don't have an issue with the premise of the suit that is being allowed.

I noticed it said advertising. I wonder what they'll try to produce that they feel glorifies murder and mass shooting.

[svauto-erotic855]

To win the case they will have to prove that the claims made in the advertising were false.

[Nash B.]

That specific litigation was shut down, so no. What could happen is that Budweiser could be sued for showing commercials that glorify under-aged drinking, in the event that a young drunk driver takes out themselves and a minivan with a family of 5 inside.

I haven't seen the commercial(s) or ads in question, but I don't have an issue with the premise of the suit that is being allowed.

Unless it's actually a minor that can't legally make decisions for themselves, it's still bullshit. The responsible party is the one that drove drunk or committed murder, not the company that marketed and sold their legal goods

[Big A]

Unless it's actually a minor that can't legally make decisions for themselves, it's still bullshit. The responsible party is the one that drove drunk or committed murder, not the company that marketed and sold their legal goods

If the company was directly marketing to said minor, they are most certainly culpable. Not directly responsible, but they should be subject to the courts scrutiny, and if deemed to be responsible in any way, punished accordingly.

[Strychnine]

If the company was directly marketing to said minor, they are most certainly culpable. Not directly responsible, but they should be subject to the courts scrutiny, and if deemed to be responsible in any way, punished accordingly.

An 18 year old can buy that gun. If they portray an 18 year old person who's perfectly capable of legally owning that weapon in their ad, it's somehow their fault that someone else, who just happens to be young, was an asshole?

[Ruffdaddy]

If the company was directly marketing to said minor, they are most certainly culpable. Not directly responsible, but they should be subject to the courts scrutiny, and if deemed to be responsible in any way, punished accordingly.

Dont try to California...my Texas

[juiceweezl]

An 18 year old can buy that gun. If they portray an 18 year old person who's perfectly capable of legally owning that weapon in their ad, it's somehow their fault that someone else, who just happens to be young, was an asshole?

All of this. I do not think they can prove that Remington (insert any mfg you want here) marketed to a minor. The lawsuit should be DOA and should not be allowed. What's next? Is someone going to sue Epic Games because Fortnite markets to kids and encourages them to blow the hell out of each other?

[Nash B.]

If the company was directly marketing to said minor, they are most certainly culpable. Not directly responsible, but they should be subject to the courts scrutiny, and if deemed to be responsible in any way, punished accordingly.

Adam Lanza was 20. Let's throw the minor hypothetical out. What kind of marketing would make Remington responsible in any way for an adult committing murder?

[Trip McNeely]

If the company was directly marketing to said minor, they are most certainly culpable. Not directly responsible, but they should be subject to the courts scrutiny, and if deemed to be responsible in any way, punished accordingly.

And that ridiculous thinking is why we live in a litigious society and they have to put warning labels on everything, stating the most obvious. It’s ridiculous that people can’t be responsible for their own actions but always blame someone or something else. How is a gun marketed in media to minors anyways?

[Big A]

I'm merely open to the possibility that there's a commercial that could merit's getting it in front of a judge, then they can throw it out or slap a fine on them.

My time in CA affirmed that I'm from Texas, y'all don't get me twisted.

[Trip McNeely]

If anybody markets guns to minors it’s Hollywood. Now that’s litigation that I would love to see with all their virtue signaling.