SCOTUS Allows Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Remington

[Moped]

Well, this is certainly a blow to the 2nd Amendment!  

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-lets-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gunmaker-proceed

 

[peejman]

I don't see that it has much of anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. It's a product liability issue.   Our legal system has decided that it's ok to sue the manufacturer of an item when someone gets hurt using it in a way neither endorsed nor intended....   "reasonably foreseeable misuse".  

People sued Ford and Firestone when their grossly under inflated tires blew out.  People sued McD's after spilling hot coffee on themselves.  Ad nauseum... 

It can't be an individual's fault because that implies some level of personal responsibility for one's actions. It's much easier to assign fault to the faceless corporation. And they usually have more money to pay out. 

[DaveTN]

At issue is the claim Remington targeted younger, violent males with combat themed advertising and hyper-masculine slogans.

I don’t remember who I heard say it on the news, but something to the effect “In the 21st century the weapons will be lawyers and the bullets will be words.”

If you can’t beat ‘em; sue ‘em into submission.

[Ronald_55]

Just another case of the litigation happy public at large looking to blame anyone else they can. 

If this gets too bad, lots of gun companies will just fold and sell out their designs to someone else. 

[Grunt67]

18 minutes ago, Ronald_55 said:

Just another case of the litigation happy public at large looking to blame anyone else they can. 

 

"If this gets too bad, lots of gun companies will just fold and sell out their designs to someone else. "

This is my concern with this lawsuit. Some of these companies are hanging by a thread as it is.

Large judgement could mean going out of business.

[peejman]

55 minutes ago, Grunt67 said:

"If this gets too bad, lots of gun companies will just fold and sell out their designs to someone else. "

This is my concern with this lawsuit. Some of these companies are hanging by a thread as it is.

Large judgement could mean going out of business.

Most consumer product companies have insurance policies for product liability claims. 

[DaveTN]

2 minutes ago, peejman said:

Most consumer product companies have insurance policies for product liability claims. 

I wonder if they cover advertising and marketing. No one is claiming anything is wrong with the product.

[trblmkr13]

Seems like suing Ford because you got hit by a drunk driving an F-150 and auto makers know people operate vehicles impaired based on the number of DUI's and did nothing to prevent it

[DaveTN]

16 minutes ago, trblmkr13 said:

Seems like suing Ford because you got hit by a drunk driving an F-150 and auto makers know people operate vehicles impaired based on the number of DUI's and did nothing to prevent it

It’s coming. The technology exists to not allow you to start your car if your BAC is over the limit. As soon as the right people get killed by drunk drivers it will be required on new vehicles. Vehicles don’t enjoy Constitutional protection’s.

[bud]

.

Edited November 23, 2019 by bud

[Grunt67]

If the plaintiff wins the suit, policy will change, no doubt. To me, this is just another bite at the 2A apple. There are only so many bites in any apple. Not good!

[Esko 270]

3 hours ago, trblmkr13 said:

Seems like suing Ford because you got hit by a drunk driving an F-150 and auto makers know people operate vehicles impaired based on the number of DUI's and did nothing to prevent it

Zero to sixty in 3.6 seconds. There has to be a lawsuit in this somewhere. 

[peejman]

17 hours ago, DaveTN said:

I wonder if they cover advertising and marketing. No one is claiming anything is wrong with the product.

Defective product or defective user?  That doesn't seem to matter.  

[Capbyrd]

20 hours ago, peejman said:

People sued Ford and Firestone when their grossly under inflated tires blew out.  People sued McD's after spilling hot coffee on themselves.  Ad nauseum... 

It can't be an individual's fault because that implies some level of personal responsibility for one's actions. It's much easier to assign fault to the faceless corporation. And they usually have more money to pay out. 

 

In the two cases you mentioned, it wasn't the individual's fault.   Ford recommended tire pressures that were inconsistent with the abilities of the tire.   So doing what you were supposed to resulted in catastrophic failure.   In the McDonald's case, the stores were found to be keeping coffee at temperatures far higher than safe.  They were serving coffee at something like 190 degrees Fahrenheit.   At that temperature, third degree burns happen in around three seconds.  Those weren't frivolous suits at all.  

[GlockSpock]

20 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

In the two cases you mentioned, it wasn't the individual's fault.   Ford recommended tire pressures that were inconsistent with the abilities of the tire.   So doing what you were supposed to resulted in catastrophic failure.   In the McDonald's case, the stores were found to be keeping coffee at temperatures far higher than safe.  They were serving coffee at something like 190 degrees Fahrenheit.   At that temperature, third degree burns happen in around three seconds.  Those weren't frivolous suits at all.  

So coming in 3...2...1...LESS DEADLY GUNS

[Capbyrd]

18 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

So coming in 3...2...1...LESS DEADLY GUNS

I don't think so.   This case is about advertising practices.  This same suit has happened time and time again with tobacco companies and they didn't get forced to make less cancerous cigarettes.  

[GlockSpock]

1 hour ago, Capbyrd said:

I don't think so.   This case is about advertising practices.  This same suit has happened time and time again with tobacco companies and they didn't get forced to make less cancerous cigarettes.  

I know...I was just kicking the can down the street a bit for no reason.

[peejman]

3 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

 

In the two cases you mentioned, it wasn't the individual's fault.   Ford recommended tire pressures that were inconsistent with the abilities of the tire.   So doing what you were supposed to resulted in catastrophic failure.   In the McDonald's case, the stores were found to be keeping coffee at temperatures far higher than safe.  They were serving coffee at something like 190 degrees Fahrenheit.   At that temperature, third degree burns happen in around three seconds.  Those weren't frivolous suits at all.  

True, Ford recommended tire pressures lower than Firestone designed for. Vehicle owners never checked their tire pressures as stated in the owners manual, and let them fall below the already low spec.  Then they drove at high speeds with heavy loads, a recipe for blow outs. Is it unreasonable to expect a driver to follow the owners manual?  The courts said it  was, hence TPMS and all the other nannies that make modern cars so expensive.

Is it unreasonable to expect a cup of coffee to be hot?  190F is a normal temp for fresh brewed coffee and has been for 200 years.  Did the cup not say "caution, contents may be hot"?  Why would you pick up and try to drink from a cup that was so hot it was burning your fingertips, while driving?

I don't mean to marginalize the injuries and deaths that occurred, but to absolve the people involved and hold the corporations solely responsible is, to me, absurd.  

 

[DaveTN]

18 minutes ago, peejman said:

Vehicle owners never checked their tire pressures as stated in the owners manual, and let them fall below the already low spec.  Then they drove at high speeds with heavy loads, a recipe for blow outs. 

That’s not true. Ford lowered the recommended tire pressure so the Explorer could pass the rollover tests. Firestone told them they couldn’t do that. They did it anyway and bunch of people died. There’s no evidence to imply fault by the victims. Fords lucky they weren't charged criminally.

Not a good example to make your point with. But probably a good example of why corporations need to be held responsible.

[Capbyrd]

24 minutes ago, peejman said:

Is it unreasonable to expect a cup of coffee to be hot?  190F is a normal temp for fresh brewed coffee and has been for 200 years.  Did the cup not say "caution, contents may be hot"?  Why would you pick up and try to drink from a cup that was so hot it was burning your fingertips, while driving?

 

That's not what happened, and 190 is way higher than coffee normally is served.   Also, during the investigation, the McDonald's in the area were found to be keeping their coffee above 204 degrees.  

The lady was in the passenger seat of a parked car putting her cream and sugar in her cup when it spilled.   The car was not in motion.  The lady was awarded the victory because McDonald's was in fact serving something unreasonably harmful to the public.   If their coffee had been a normal temperature, her injuries wouldn't have been as bad and she would not have won her suit.  

[Capbyrd]

1 minute ago, DaveTN said:

That’s not true. Ford lowered the recommended tire pressure so the Explorer could pass the rollover tests. Firestone told them they couldn’t do that. They did it anyway and bunch of people died. There’s no evidence to imply fault by the victims. Fords lucky they weren't charged criminally.

Not a good example to make your point with. But probably a good example of why corporations need to be held responsible.

Hey, we agree with something.   Both of these cases were bad examples.  

 

[DaveTN]

1 minute ago, Capbyrd said:

Hey, we agree with something.  

[peejman]

I guess I'll brush up on my Google-fu more next time. 

[FUJIMO]

5 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

 

That's not what happened, and 190 is way higher than coffee normally is served.   Also, during the investigation, the McDonald's in the area were found to be keeping their coffee above 204 degrees.  

The lady was in the passenger seat of a parked car putting her cream and sugar in her cup when it spilled.   The car was not in motion.  The lady was awarded the victory because McDonald's was in fact serving something unreasonably harmful to the public.   If their coffee had been a normal temperature, her injuries wouldn't have been as bad and she would not have won her suit.  

190 to 210 is considered to be optimal temperature for "the best" cup. Ask anyone who uses a french press or a pour over that requires you heat a kettle of.Or you can ask Jeaux (pronounced joe) the barista at your local $10 a cup coffee house and I'm sure he she or it will give you a lecture on the chemical catalyst that takes place .

 

[TomInMN]

13 hours ago, FUJIMO said:

190 to 210 is considered to be optimal temperature for "the best" cup. Ask anyone who uses a french press or a pour over that requires you heat a kettle of.Or you can ask Jeaux (pronounced joe) the barista at your local $10 a cup coffee house and I'm sure he she or it will give you a lecture on the chemical catalyst that takes place .

 

Is there a distinction to be made between optimal temperature for brewing and for serving? I don't know enough about coffee to know.

I need oil at 325* or so to make french... er, FREEDOM... fries but I don't want my kids touching them right out of the oil.

Also, is Jeaux a man or a woman? (Possibly a non-gendered being?) Just curious...

Edited November 14, 2019 by TomInMN
One more thing...