Court rules families of Sandy Hook shooting victims can sue gunmaker Remington

[Sergeant Gleed]

really? The Conn court has the authority to overrule federal law?

[Tahuyaman]

really? The Conn court has the authority to overrule federal law?

They don't have the final word on this. I would think this decision will be appealed. This will more than likely end up in the Supreme Court at some point. This would open the door for every state to sue or harass firearms manufacturers out of existence.

Also, there's no guarantee that the plaintiffs will prevail in their law suit.

[Sergeant Gleed]

The fact that they would be allowed to sue the manufacturer of a legally sold product for the harm caused by the criminal use of a criminally acquired product goes against EVERY tenet of law in civilized countries.

So, what's next, Ford gets sued because a car thief runs a stolen Explorer through a Times Square crowd in a deliberate act of terrorism?

Will Boeing be liable when Alaskan Airlines loses a me one's luggage?

Can someone sue Nancy Pelosi because someone got drunk on wine from her Vinyard and killed a child? Or would that be the car maker's fault, or would that be ruled an involuntary abortion and set aside?

[Abby08]

Why not file the suit against the shooter's family? They're more responsible than the gun manufacturer, they created that POS.

Oh, excuse me, they're following the smell of money.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Why not file the suit against the shooter's family? They're more responsible than the gun manufacturer, they created that POS.

Oh, excuse me, they're following the smell of money.

No, it's not that. Sure, the scum-sucking Rodents love to steal money, but their goal is to establish precedent so they can get everyone who's ever been related to a dirtbag that got shot to sue the gun maker and put them out of business.

The goal is transparent, here, and the Congress passed a FEDERAL LAW prohibiting the practice. Doesn't matter what some Rodent judge in some Podunk state says to the contrary.

[Dr. Who]

You are all missing the forest for the trees. This lawsuit is not about the sales of guns, but the method i.e. advertising practices that encourage buyers to think that they are acquiring a military weapon - “the ultimate combat weapons system.”

[Cletus]

Not really relevant. The fact remains that firearms manufacturers are protected from brought because someone used their product illegally.

[Peter1469]

You are all missing the forest for the trees. This lawsuit is not about the sales of guns, but the method i.e. advertising practices that encourage buyers to think that they are acquiring a military weapon - “the ultimate combat weapons system.”

The Sandy Hook shooter did not purchase the gun. Advertisements did not effect him.

His mother bought a lot of guns- legally. The shooter killed her and stole them. So there is a criminal act standing between a legal sale and the mass shooting. The law suit should fail on that basis.

However it should not even be entertained. Sellers of legal products should not be liable for the criminal use of their products. (This is different from the tobacco cases, ask if you are interested.) If that legal principle were to go away many major corporations will be litigated out of business.

All this is is grieving parents seeking deep pockets to ease the mourning process.

[Peter1469]

Not really relevant. The fact remains that firearms manufacturers are protected from brought because someone used their product illegally.

That is the problem with this case- it upends that principle.

[Dr. Who]

The Sandy Hook shooter did not purchase the gun. Advertisements did not effect him.

His mother bought a lot of guns- legally. The shooter killed her and stole them. So there is a criminal act standing between a legal sale and the mass shooting. The law suit should fail on that basis.

However it should not even be entertained. Sellers of legal products should not be liable for the criminal use of their products. (This is different from the tobacco cases, ask if you are interested.) If that legal principle were to go away many major corporations will be litigated out of business.

All this is is grieving parents seeking deep pockets to ease the mourning process.

Nevertheless, they are not suing under the legal principle of "negligent entrustment" but instead alleging a violation of CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act):

ec. 42-110b. Unfair trade practices prohibited. Legislative intent. (a) No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.(b) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing subsection (a) of this section, the commissioner and the courts of this state shall be guided by interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USC 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended.(c) The commissioner may, in accordance with chapter 54, establish by regulation acts, practices or methods which shall be deemed to be unfair or deceptive in violation of subsection (a) of this section. Such regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the federal trade commission and the federal courts in interpreting the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act.(d) It is the intention of the legislature that this chapter be remedial and be so construed.