Kind of surprised by this. Maybe someone else knows more, but seems pretty bad precedent for the gun industry.
Remington offers $33 million to families of Sandy Hook school shooting victims
https://reut.rs/3iT0nuD
Kind of surprised by this. Maybe someone else knows more, but seems pretty bad precedent for the gun industry.
Remington offers $33 million to families of Sandy Hook school shooting victims
https://reut.rs/3iT0nuD
Didn't Remington just come out of bankruptcy?
Never surrender to these antigun loonies.
What other industry can you sue and be taken seriously?
Did the gun malfunction? No, but the operator did.
Did the gun work as designed? Yes. It fired bullet when trigger was pulled.
Did the gun aim & fire without a trigger pull? Nope.
Did Remington sell the gun to a prohibited person? Nope.
Fvck the greedy money grubbing lawyers pushing this nonsense. Remington has zero liability in any murder when a criminal using thier product commits a crime.
Remington doesn't advertise thier products for murder or criminal activity. Actually quite the opposite, home defense and recreation.
Remington's lawyers need to grow a spine and leave any empathy for these families at the door. Sucks your family members were killed by a deranged criminal who stole the gun, but you don't deserve a penny of Remington's money nor a second of court time trying. Just go away and fall into history as a distant memory like every other shooting.
Sets a bad precedent.
That's an understatement and, opened the gates to anti gun groups trying to bankrupt the gun manufactures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
They'll go after the low hanging fruit, first.
And to think some people thought gun sales would slow down.
Oh that was stupid AF.
And now Century is feeling the heat regarding the Gilroy CA Garlic Festival shooting:
https://www.ktvu.com/news/lawsuit-re...n-manufacturer
Worrisome for sure. Bankruptcy is a business decision, and when business decisions are made, they are often about the bottom line rather than core values. Maybe the new owners believe there is big profits in guns and ammo, but not if they have to deal with these lawsuits--so better to pay off and make them go away. Surely a short term solution with long term second and third order effects.
If you haven't looked at Remington stuff in the last decade, you might not want to. It will just make you sad. The quality and craftsmanship is down the tubes from what it used to be and i can only imagine how bad it is now that it's Rem Arms ... i hope they bring back the quality and attention to detail from yonder year, but I am not holding my breath.
HBAR's issue with a brand new muzzle loader is one of a few examples I've encountered (second hand, admittedly).
They likely figured it was cheaper to pay than to continue to pay lawyers to fight them.
Remington quality has been going south for a long while....I won't buy anything they are putting out these days.
Remington R51 pistols and 870 tight chambers come to mind.
https://www.militarytimes.com/off-du...s-replacement/
Amen. 100%. End of discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck
Rem Arms paying any amount of $ is a terrible precedent to set and they're just dooming themselves and other manufacturers if there is any legal conclusions derived from this decision.
Guess they be "Woke" now, paying reparation's and such.
Well, if I?m in an auto accident where the other person is at fault then I?ll be looking to get a payout from the vehicle manufacturer as well I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawin
Isn?t Remington part of some conglomeration of companies owned by some sort of hedge fund or something?
Vista Outdoors but not sure if they still are.Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1970
I think they split up the arms and ammo IIRC?
It is the insurance companies that used to carry Remington's liability that are making the offer.
This will be used as a reason to not offer liability insurance to firearm manufacturers in the future.
Remington folds...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/sandy-hook...ry?id=82881639
This is a bad prescedent.
Also, a bad president. Spell checker is not my friend.
I agree about the president.Quote:
Originally Posted by 10x
This settlement also sets a bad precedent.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1970
Some felon drives through a parade killing and wounding many people? Don't go after the driver, go after the vehicle manufacturer. Yeah, that makes sense. [dig]
I can't help but notice the original headline was about $33 Million and now it's $73 Million.... that's also some insane ballooning on top of it.
Yes, they set a hugely bad precedent.
If Remington thinks that this is the end of it, they're dead wrong. They've opened the floodgates for themselves and every other firearms manufacturer. This is just the beginning.
Dumbasses.
But go after the manufacturer because of the way they advertised it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
WTF over?
There is no Remington anymore. They went bankrupt last July and their divisions were auctioned off in September.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
Expect to see more lawsuits filed, even though this wasn't a direct ruling by a court. This was a settlement with those that filed suit and the insurance company that held Remington's liability.
This was an odd case, since there is federal protection against this type of suit, yet Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled the it could go forward, based on their marketing, not the actual production of the rifles.
Also, since the company went under, they were not able to see it through to court.
The precedent that is scary for the manufacturers is that fewer insurance companies will be willing to take that big of a hit so will either not insure them or raise the premium so high as to be unaffordable for them.
Many large insurers are run by people that are sympathetic to the left and are vulnerable to political pressure.