Trillion Dollar Sandy Hook lawsuit

[bigity]

This kind of thing will never go away until losing a lawsuit puts the plaintiff on the hook for some of the defendants costs. And I'm not sure that's a good idea to begin with.

[Pariah3j]

Actually I believe the defendant can counter-sue for legal costs (IANAL so I might be mistaken here). Not sure how many do this, but would raise the stakes if more would for frivolous lawsuits.

[Javier730]

Actually I believe the defendant can counter-sue for legal costs (IANAL so I might be mistaken here). Not sure how many do this, but would raise the stakes if more would for frivolous lawsuits.

Here in Texas at least, when being sued, you usually have to answer the suit and one way to answer is a general denial. The general denial usually makes the plaintiff have to prove each part of their case and it can also say that you want the plaintiff to cover all of your legal costs if the judge rules in your favor. Im sure the process is somehow similar there as well.

You could also sue them for other things like slander and libel if that is something they actually did.

[The Marshal]

The lawsuit's claim is that the firearm is a military weapon and should not be sold to the general public. They're suing the manufacturer for making it available to the public. The manufacturer has immunity from being sued based on who it is sold to, but can be sued for making firearms available to the public that should not be made available to the public. The people filing the lawsuit claim the firearm was originally designed for the military and as such should not be made available to the public; forgetting the fact that the manufacturer modified the 'militarized' firearm to be only semi-automatic.

So can we sue Chrysler if a Jeep is involved in an accident?

[Javier730]

The lawsuit's claim is that the firearm is a military weapon and should not be sold to the general public. They're suing the manufacturer for making it available to the public. The manufacturer has immunity from being sued based on who it is sold to, but can be sued for making firearms available to the public that should not be made available to the public. The people filing the lawsuit claim the firearm was originally designed for the military and as such should not be made available to the public; forgetting the fact that the manufacturer modified the 'militarized' firearm to be only semi-automatic.

So can we sue Chrysler if a Jeep is involved in an accident?

Yup you actually can if you can prove that the jeep was somehow defective not because of normal wear and tear but because a mistake made during production. Its not rare for vehicle manufacturers to do recalls because of something defective in their vehicles.

[ScottDLS]

The lawsuit's claim is that the firearm is a military weapon and should not be sold to the general public. They're suing the manufacturer for making it available to the public. The manufacturer has immunity from being sued based on who it is sold to, but can be sued for making firearms available to the public that should not be made available to the public. The people filing the lawsuit claim the firearm was originally designed for the military and as such should not be made available to the public; forgetting the fact that the manufacturer modified the 'militarized' firearm to be only semi-automatic.

So can we sue Chrysler if a Jeep is involved in an accident?

In my case they should have known that I'm a terrible driver and not sold me a vehicle (Jeep) that was designed for the military.

[Javier730]

The lawsuit's claim is that the firearm is a military weapon and should not be sold to the general public. They're suing the manufacturer for making it available to the public. The manufacturer has immunity from being sued based on who it is sold to, but can be sued for making firearms available to the public that should not be made available to the public. The people filing the lawsuit claim the firearm was originally designed for the military and as such should not be made available to the public; forgetting the fact that the manufacturer modified the 'militarized' firearm to be only semi-automatic.

So can we sue Chrysler if a Jeep is involved in an accident?

In my case they should have known that I'm a terrible driver and not sold me a vehicle (Jeep) that was designed for the military.

They should of done driving record background check on you before selling it. Damn those car sale loop holes.

[ScottDLS]

Then I would have had my wife "straw purchase" it, like my Escalade.

[Pariah3j]

Think Universal Driving Background checks would help solve the problem ? It obviously would prevent those straw purchases, I'm sure of it.

[aero10]

I know what they are claiming, but once again the Manufacturer didn't make it available to the public, it sold it to distributors who then sold it to gun stores who sold it to the public.

Yes, they did not sell it directly to the public, but by selling it to the distributor, they made it available to the public. Manufactures don't sell military weapons to a distributor; they sell direct to the DoD. In this argument, the distributor would be the public. A manufacturer cannot sell a tank, for instance, to a distributor.

I don't think they'll win (I certainly hope they don't).

[ScottDLS]

I know what they are claiming, but once again the Manufacturer didn't make it available to the public, it sold it to distributors who then sold it to gun stores who sold it to the public.

Yes, they did not sell it directly to the public, but by selling it to the distributor, they made it available to the public. Manufactures don't sell military weapons to a distributor; they sell direct to the DoD. In this argument, the distributor would be the public. A manufacturer cannot sell a tank, for instance, to a distributor.

I don't think they'll win (I certainly hope they don't).

A manufacturer can sell a tank to a Type 9 FFL Dealer, who can then sell it to an individual. Good luck finding one that will do it, but it is technically possible.

[Javier730]

I know what they are claiming, but once again the Manufacturer didn't make it available to the public, it sold it to distributors who then sold it to gun stores who sold it to the public.

Yes, they did not sell it directly to the public, but by selling it to the distributor, they made it available to the public. Manufactures don't sell military weapons to a distributor; they sell direct to the DoD. In this argument, the distributor would be the public. A manufacturer cannot sell a tank, for instance, to a distributor.

I don't think they'll win (I certainly hope they don't).

I dont think so either but if they do, everyone who has been shot or their families is gonna sue next.

They will probably go after the ammunition manufacturer next if they lose.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

"It argues that the legally purchased AR-15 used by Adam Lanza in the attack should never have been sold because it had no reasonable civilian purpose."

Given the 'proponderance of evidence' available in terms of the massive amount of use of AR type firearms in competition, hunting, etc. on a daily basis, it should be easy to bury the plaintiff's attorneys in a mountain of paper. Which means this mess will drag on for years...........

[VoiceofReason]

Why would this judge allow this to continue and put the families through this when they're going to loose? Bushmaster is no more responsible for this that Ford is responsible for what the Affluenza Moron did.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/15/ju ... cmp=hplnws

"Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said that a 2005 federal law protecting gun-makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the victims' families from arguing that the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians."

They're letting them argue the gun shouldn't be sold in the first place. Completely bogus, but it's similar to Texas law that while you have criminal/civil immunity you can still be sued.

This whole thing is a blivet (with the meaning of the World War II military term) and will go nowhere.

"Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said that a 2005 federal law protecting gun-makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the victims' families from arguing that the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians."

“should not” is a subjective term and depends to a great extent upon the situation and who you ask. The ATF and Legislative branch of the government make the decisions as to what weapons should and should not be sold to civilians.

The best way to stop these politically motivated suits is to have a way to get into the lawyers bank account if the plaintiff loses.

[C-dub]

There are laws that prohibit the sale of certain types of weapons to the general public and neither the manufacturer nor the store that sold her that rifle violated any of them. Sadly, the families will go through the emotional turmoil of losing their children again, but they will lose.