Sandy Hook gun litigation

[Sir Lawrence]

Despite popular disdain for trial attorneys, there is a need for a strong trial bar to tackle the issues politicians are too afraid to deal with.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/14/474248535/sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gun-companies-can-move-forward-judge-says

This could get very interesting. 

And I apologize if this should be in the politics section.  I haven't had the intestinal fortitude to stray that way very often. 

[muwarrior69]

Despite popular disdain for trial attorneys, there is a need for a strong trial bar to tackle the issues politicians are too afraid to deal with.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/14/474248535/sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gun-companies-can-move-forward-judge-says

This could get very interesting. 

And I apologize if this should be in the politics section.  I haven't had the intestinal fortitude to stray that way very often.

If we take this case to its logical conclusion: then we can sue oil companies/refineries for selling gasoline for every arson; car manufacturers for vehicular homicide; knife manufacturers for stabbing deaths. The list goes on.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If we take this case to its logical conclusion: then we can sue oil companies/refineries for selling gasoline for every arson; car manufacturers for vehicular homicide; knife manufacturers for stabbing deaths. The list goes on.

Yup.  That's why it is ridiculous to even go down this path, but all it takes is one judge.  Bernie Sanders was right when he said this is a really bad idea to allow a suit like this.   We'll see if it gets thrown out on the merits, or ultimately what a jury says (if it gets that far).  I don't expect the families to win this, ultimately.

[brandx]

If we take this case to its logical conclusion: then we can sue oil companies/refineries for selling gasoline for every arson; car manufacturers for vehicular homicide; knife manufacturers for stabbing deaths. The list goes on.

Why is that?

Guns were invented solely to kill. Cars, gasoline, and knives were not. aren't.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Good!  Maybe being close to the event makes me more biased than others.

[Coleman]

nvm

[ChicosBailBonds]

The shotgun was invented in the 1800's.  It is a gun, as are many others.  Using this logic, if this crazed idiot had gone in with a shotgun and killed these kids, the Shotgun maker should have been sued.  Think about it for one second.

At the end of the day, the gun that was used is legal.  The gun was purchased legally.  It is an absolute tragedy what happened.....no one on earth would argue differently.  No one, but as Bernie Sanders said, this is ridiculous to go down this path.

[Jables1604]

I practice law in the jurisdiction where this issue was decided. The judge who rendered this decision is the presiding judge for the judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport. Her name is Barbara Bellis.

I am in front of Judge Bellis multiple times each week. She is a highly respected jurist who oftentimes is called upon to make extremely polarizing decision.

Her decision in this case dealt with a very limited issue. Specifically, the gun manufacturers had sought to dismiss the case based on an immunity argument under a federal statute. This is entirely different and wholly separate from deciding the case on the merits.

The gun manufacturers tried to have the case thrown out on procedural grounds. The judge mery ruled that the immunity argument in this case did not apply. She did not, in any way, acknowledge the validity of the families' claim. In fact, the manufacturers have numerous other legal remedies available to them based on legal (and not procedural) arguments.

They will undoubtedly raise those issues by way of a Motion for Summary Judgment which would need to be heard typically before any trial date is even scheduled (although there are a few minor exceptions).

i think the vast majority of the public is under the impression that this now means the gun manufacturers are liable. That is simply not the case.

[rocket surgeon]

"i think the vast majority of the public is under the impression that this now means the gun manufacturers are liable. That is simply not the case."


    given that the public doesn't know what you just explained, all they have to go on is-the families are suing the gun manufacturers and holding them liable for the deaths of the school children.  but thank you for doing what our media is either inept at or willfully leaving out to create a misunderstanding and jump to conclusions and thus, adding to the polarity of the situation.   

[jsglow]

I practice law in the jurisdiction where this issue was decided. The judge who rendered this decision is the presiding judge for the judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport. Her name is Barbara Bellis.

I am in front of Judge Bellis multiple times each week. She is a highly respected jurist who oftentimes is called upon to make extremely polarizing decision.

Her decision in this case dealt with a very limited issue. Specifically, the gun manufacturers had sought to dismiss the case based on an immunity argument under a federal statute. This is entirely different and wholly separate from deciding the case on the merits.

The gun manufacturers tried to have the case thrown out on procedural grounds. The judge mery ruled that the immunity argument in this case did not apply. She did not, in any way, acknowledge the validity of the families' claim. In fact, the manufacturers have numerous other legal remedies available to them based on legal (and not procedural) arguments.

They will undoubtedly raise those issues by way of a Motion for Summary Judgment which would need to be heard typically before any trial date is even scheduled (although there are a few minor exceptions).

i think the vast majority of the public is under the impression that this now means the gun manufacturers are liable. That is simply not the case.

Excellent portrayal of the civil litigation process counselor.  Our media simply sucks.

[Pakuni]

Excellent portrayal of the civil litigation process counselor.  Our media simply sucks.

Did you read the linked story?

She says lawyers for the gun companies had pointed "to a federal law that prevents certain lawsuits against gun makers when those guns are used in a crime." But Toth notes, "The companies could still try to get the lawsuit thrown out based on the merits of the case."

And it contains a link to the federal law that Jables explains. Not the media's fault people are too lazy to read the story and links.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Excellent portrayal of the civil litigation process counselor.  Our media simply sucks.

Some media did ok with it, but others were cheering this on big time because of their political bent.

I am under the impression that some of the families are suing because of something called negligent entrustment, meaning that the gun shop who legally sold the gun to Mrs. Lanza should have known that there was a risk selling a gun to her (supposedly they should have known her son was who he was, or she wasn't locking up the gun (which she did) or she was a risk herself).

The judge didn't rule on the merits of the case.  As I said in the first post, I think this thing ultimately gets dismissed on the merits or a jury will say no dice.  Sure, they're going to have a bunch of horrific pictures thrown in front of them, but at the end of the day this is wrong to go down this path on so many levels.

[jsglow]

Did you read the linked story?

She says lawyers for the gun companies had pointed "to a federal law that prevents certain lawsuits against gun makers when those guns are used in a crime." But Toth notes, "The companies could still try to get the lawsuit thrown out based on the merits of the case."

And it contains a link to the federal law that Jables explains. Not the media's fault people are too lazy to read the story and links.

Candidly, I didn't simply because I'm not that interested.  I simply note that Jables correctly described how civil litigation really works.  Dismissal prior to Summary Judgment in my experience is extremely rare.  It smacks of a litigant not getting 'his day in court'.  My experience is with bank debt litigation.  Apart from outright fraud, banks win EVERY time and almost always at the Summary Judgment stage.  But lawyers still whisper nothings in their deadbeat clients ears that they can actually not be held accountable for paying their debts.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matthew-balan/2016/04/15/abc-cnn-tout-major-win-lawsuit-against-gunmakers-over-sandy-hook

[muwarrior69]

Why is that?

Guns were invented solely to kill. Cars, gasoline, and knives were not. aren't.

Guns are used for self-defense, sport, hunting; not solely to kill. So when every hunter goes out and kills a deer, a duck or turkey PETA can sue the gun manufacturer; or the bow and arrow manufacturer. I guess that is where were headed.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Guns are used for self-defense, sport, hunting; not solely to kill. So when every hunter goes out and kills a deer, a duck or turkey PETA can sue the gun manufacturer; or the bow and arrow manufacturer. I guess that is where were headed.

I think they should sue Hanes underwear, because maybe Lanza's dad had his underwear too tight, the sperm got too warm, when he impregnated the mother he was more prone to the condition he developed, which ultimately led this nut job to do what he did. 

[rocket surgeon]

I think they should sue Hanes underwear, because maybe Lanza's dad had his underwear too tight, the sperm got too warm, when he impregnated the mother he was more prone to the condition he developed, which ultimately led this nut job to do what he did.

thanks for the heads up-i just sold my hanes undies stocks...phew!!

    btw, good thing a certain poster ain't here anymore(holding breath) cuz he would be throwing the scatology flag at you, wide stance II

[Pakuni]

Guns are used for self-defense, sport, hunting; not solely to kill. So when every hunter goes out and kills a deer, a duck or turkey PETA can sue the gun manufacturer; or the bow and arrow manufacturer. I guess that is where were headed.

This is true of handguns, shotguns and some rifles.
This is not at all true of the weapon Adam Lanza used.
That's the point of the lawsuit, that it was a weapon designed solely to kill lots of people in little time, and why the silly slippery slope arguments about cars, hunting, knives and underwear are so thoroughly asinine and obtuse.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Excellent portrayal of the civil litigation process counselor.  Our media simply sucks.

Poll out today, VAST majority of Americans don't trust the news media

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/35c595900e0a4ffd99fbdc48a336a6d8/poll-vast-majority-americans-dont-trust-news-media

[77ncaachamps]

Poll out today, VAST majority of Americans don't trust the news media

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/35c595900e0a4ffd99fbdc48a336a6d8/poll-vast-majority-americans-dont-trust-news-media

Similarly, a vast majority of Americans don't trust polls.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is true of handguns, shotguns and some rifles.
This is not at all true of the weapon Adam Lanza used.
That's the point of the lawsuit, that it was a weapon designed solely to kill lots of people in little time, and why the silly slippery slope arguments about cars, hunting, knives and underwear are so thoroughly asinine and obtuse.

Was the gun legal?  Yes

Was the gun purchased legally?  Yes


No slippery slope.  Just stupidity.  Do you think for a New York second of this mental defect took two shotguns into those classrooms and wiped out 10,15, 20 kids the same argument would not be made?  You know it would.  The type of gun is irrelevant, people are upset and they want someone to pay for it. Natural reaction, but that doesn't change the poor legal argument being made, ultimately.

I'd be surprised if they ultimately prevail.  Legal gun.  End of story.

[Jables1604]

Knowing what I know this is the likeliest scenario of how this will play out:

The gun manufacturers will never voluntarily pay a single cent to the Plaintiff's in this case. Not because they wouldn't like to have this behind them. The minute they pay out any monetary compensation victims of gun violence will be lining up all over the country looking for a money award.

Therefore, if the case is not disposed of by way of motion for summary judgment it will proceed to a jury trial trial. Therein likes the second problem. Connecticut, particularly the area where this courthouse is located, is still very much mourning the losses suffered at Sandy Hook. Even though we do have some vocal 2nd Amendment supporters here it will be nearly impossible for an impartial jury to be selected.

If the case proceeds to trial I can't imagine any scenario where the gun manufacturers come out on the winning end simply because of the issues I just discussed. That means the Connecticut appellate courts will be charged with the task of interpreting the law. Of course, regardless of the outcome on the appellate level, the party that does not prevail will continue on to the Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately the US Supreme Court.

At some point there will likely be some discussion of withdrawing the case in exchange for some concession from the manufacturers with regard to the marketing or selling of certain firearms (the AR15 Bushmaster, in particular). The manufacturers will ultimately reject that claim based on their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out but in reality this will not be resolved for a very, very long time. And while I have always appreciated Chico's opinions and informations on all things hoop I think the examples he (and others) have tried to make analogous to this are nothing short of hyperbolic.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How is the shotgun example hyperbolic? 


I think Bernie Sanders said it well....this is silly.  People are emotional, but emotional doesn't get to trump sanity or the Constitution.

[Jables1604]

I was talking about the Hanes underwear comment as well as the references to gasoline, etc. that's why I mentioned "Chico (and others).

And I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest here. I just think that the "slippery slope" argument can be used to criticize just about every single lawsuit, whether there is a basis for that argument or not.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I was talking about the Hanes underwear comment as well as the references to gasoline, etc. that's why I mentioned "Chico (and others).

And I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest here. I just think that the "slippery slope" argument can be used to criticize just about every single lawsuit, whether there is a basis for that argument or not.

Yes, I was being hyperbolic there with Hanes, but I thought that was obvious with no real needed.

That's why I used the shotgun example to show the absurdity of it all because some folks want to claim guns have s soul purpose to kill, which is false.

No doubt, emotionally charged issue and the incident was tragic on every level.