Sandy Hook Families Get Hearing Against Gun Maker

[Red Leg]

Business makes an product and sells it for a profit. They pay for insurance which offers coverage to the business for a profit. The insurance company ensures that an injured person can recover some of the care costs, lost income etc when the business has injured them or killed a loved one. That is the unstated benefit of insurance is that it benefits both sides - the business owner is free to make money and the injured person is saved from being destitute when they are injured. It is actually a good thing for society. The lawyer funds the payment of experts. Buying medical records, hiring investigators....last trial I did against a doctor who put 50 holes in the bowel of a carpenter rendering him a gastric cripple, required me to fund $75,000 in expenses. If we don't win ain't no one paying it back to me because he can't work anymore. So the contingency model allows him to go after the doctor who has destroyed his bowels. No way could he afford to tackle the medical establishment otherwise. And, if successful I anticipate...wait for it...a profit.

Really. Is that how business works? I ran a $750m piece of a major defense company for a decade so I actually understand profit. It is a healthy thing and the basis of a capitalist economic system. And I believe much of our plaintiff litigation has become a parasitic drag on that economic model. I certainly agree that insurance is both a necessary and worthwhile industry. What is skewing the system is frivolous access to the judicial system without consequence and the outrageous judgements enabled by the federal government through legislation such as the Clayton Act. And judging by the commercials and billboards in this area, I am convinced there is a lot more hustle taking place than noble defense of defenseless. Regrettably, it will take legislation (regulation as you say) to get this legislatively enabled mess back under control.

 

[Pheroze]

Really. Is that how business works? I ran a $750m piece of a major defense company for a decade so I actually understand profit. It is a healthy thing and the basis of a capitalist economic system. And I believe much of our plaintiff litigation has become a parasitic drag on that economic model. I certainly agree that insurance is both a necessary and worthwhile industry. What is skewing the system is frivolous access to the judicial system without consequence and the outrageous judgements enabled by the federal government through legislation such as the Clayton Act. And judging by the commercials and billboards in this area, I am convinced there is a lot more hustle taking place than noble defense of defenseless. Regrettably, it will take legislation (regulation as you say) to get this legislatively enabled mess back under control.

I am not sure what is meant by "tort reform". I am also unfamiliar with the federal legislation in the USA so I am not trying to comment on that.

The OP is about a case that has been given a chance to be heard. My point is that it is a slippery slope when legislation prevents access to ones right to be heard. I think the system that I know is way better than many realize.

[I had a whole diatribe here that I cut out, lol]

I know litigation. I have fought government, physicians, hospitals, big insurers, other lawyers, blah, blah, blah. I have always done it on my own or with a small team. My clients have never had the ability to pay. I only mention this to express that I know litigation better than some.

In my experience few hustlers have the ability or desire to take on complicated issues. They want the easy, rear end bent neck case and they want a pile of them to make an easy profit. Hence the mass advertising.

I have yet to see "tort reform" that didn't just make things worse.

If we can figure out how to speed up the process, or make it less costly, then great. A fast trial in a loser pay jurisdiction is probably the best outcome. The courts already have a way to stop cases that are frivolous. The hustler is risk adverse and finds a way to bail before trial. So a streamlined system is the best for the meritorious defendant and the serious plaintiff.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

The hustler is risk adverse and finds a way to bail before trial. So a streamlined system is the best for the meritorious defendant and the serious plaintiff.

The hustlers bailing out is often the buyout I mentioned before. An example I'll give was from an auto accident I was in and at fault for a number of years ago.

In my virtually brand new Tundra, stop/go traffic, I got distracted for a moment and rear ended a guy at about 10mph. Big vehicle hitting another big vehicle (Lexus SUV if I recall), so a fair amount of damage to the vehicles.

Cops showed up, I told them exactly what happened and that I was at fault. They of course ticketed me as that was the right thing to do to protect the other driver. That was really not necessary as I had no intention of trying to get out of it, but still it was the right thing to do.

My truck was repaired and as far as I knew the other driver had been taken care of. Until one evening not quite 2 years later I was served with papers at my home telling me I was being sued for the accident. It seems that the other driver was trying to get medical payments for this slow speed accident. Is it possible he was hurt? Certainly, but the problem was he could not provide documentation from a doctor that showed his treatment was for injuries incurred due to the accident.

The case was to go to arbitration here in Arizona, a process that could take months. The case closed quickly when the other guy made an offer to my insurance company's lawyer that was below what they authorized him to settle at.

So he got paid some amount of money for medical treatment not related to the accident. Now my insurance company could have fought the issue, but of course that would cost them in paying the lawyer for his work. So they decided to settle for an amount which was less than what it would have cost them to "win" the case.

And now every other person who pays for auto insurance gets to help pay that bill. When I think of tort reform, it is these kinds of examples that I'd like to see dealt with. The man sued me / my insurance company and got money he did not deserve and we all get to pay for that.

 

[wesheltonj]

Well, Remington will be dismissed, Congress pass a law exempting manufacturers from this type of suit. However, the local gun store my not fair so well, no such exemption to my knowledge. And I doubt that the gun store will get out on Summary Judgment, because their will be some "fact" issue to prevent that. And that means a trial and appeal.

 

[wesheltonj]

A "frivolous lawsuit" is always some else lawsuit.

 

[Red Leg]

I am not sure what is meant by "tort reform". I am also unfamiliar with the federal legislation in the USA so I am not trying to comment on that.

The OP is about a case that has been given a chance to be heard. My point is that it is a slippery slope when legislation prevents access to ones right to be heard. I think the system that I know is way better than many realize.

[I had a whole diatribe here that I cut out, lol]

I know litigation. I have fought government, physicians, hospitals, big insurers, other lawyers, blah, blah, blah. I have always done it on my own or with a small team. My clients have never had the ability to pay. I only mention this to express that I know litigation better than some.

In my experience few hustlers have the ability or desire to take on complicated issues. They want the easy, rear end bent neck case and they want a pile of them to make an easy profit. Hence the mass advertising.

I have yet to see "tort reform" that didn't just make things worse.

If we can figure out how to speed up the process, or make it less costly, then great. A fast trial in a loser pay jurisdiction is probably the best outcome. The courts already have a way to stop cases that are frivolous. The hustler is risk adverse and finds a way to bail before trial. So a streamlined system is the best for the meritorious defendant and the serious plaintiff.

Assumed you were a US citizen. I regret the assumption. Interestingly, Canada is one of the models held up as a reasonable aspiration for reform of our own system. Award damages are a huge difference between the two countries. In civil litigation, the Clayton Act (early 20th century) created the concept of awarding triple the actual damages as a punitive measure. When used correctly, it has been a great motivator for corporations to both behave and show due care in their product development processes. However, it is also a mechanism where classes of plaintiffs can be created to file suit over almost anything, using contingency retainer models. For instance, both asbestos and black mold have proven negative health impacts. Anyone so injured, through a businesses disregard for those risks, should have recourse to compensation for expenses incurred for treatment and lost income. However, both have blossomed into multi-billion dollar legal and mitigation businesses in this country. Both issues exist elsewhere in the developed world, but the legal gatekeepers (numerous different mechanisms) stay focused on actual injury sustained. Not here (and I cut my diatribe by three-quarters)

 

[35bore]

Oh my god, you just killed that guy with a knife.... You need to go to prison, normal people just don't do that.

Oh my god, you just killed that guy with a baseball bat.... You need to go to prison, normal people just don't do that.

OMG, you just killed that girl with a pair of scissors.... You need to go to prison, normal people don't do that.

OMG, you just shot that guy... We need more gun control. I can't believe people are allowed to own these things....

???????????

Both persons responsible, are dead.... Mom allowed it and paid the price. The cowardly son, "took his own", and there's no one else to sue but the folks who designed the rifle. Hell, sue the government too, they accepted the design and made it popular for military applications. Sue the video game industry, a lot of the war games have this style firearm included. You know what, sue the iron, and alumium mills for providing the materials to remington. Sue UPS for delivering the gun to the gunshop. Sue the pharmaceutical company and the doctor for the psychotropic drugs this kid was on. Sue everyone who owns one of these rifles, because I'm sure it's our fault somehow.

Get on you high horse and tell me I'm wrong again. If you guys don't stand for something, then why stand at all?

 

[Pheroze]

The expense of lawsuits is a very vexing issue. Lawsuits used to take days to try and now take weeks. We have had five different attempts to reform motor vehicle litigation and it is just getting more expensive. Occupational therapists, Chiropractors and the like are making out like bandits in "no fault" system.

I think less is more. We will put people in jail with less procedure then to sue for injury. My colleague has practiced for 50 years. In his day you got a brief, got a trial date and got it done. The analogy he uses for litigation today is " I went to the baseball game but they settled so I came home"

I have certainly seen what I will call the personal injury industry and I can't say it is my cup of tea. But, I also question why any private business should get immunity from citizens who claim against them.

....triple damages eh...

Sorry, got a bit dreamy there

 

[Dragan N.]

@ Pheroze,
I might be wrong here but I don't think anyone is saying that a "private business should get immunity from citizens who claim against them". There are plenty of cases were I think a business deserved to get sued or even should have been sued but wasn't/ The problem/issue at least from what I gather is that this specific case is based on highly politicized motives for gun control. The gun manufacturer is being sued/held accountable for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual who chose to use their product in an illegal and tragic way. If this wasn't a gun manufacturer this suit probably wouldn't exist. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing- McVeigh made a car bomb- using a truck loaded with a bomb made from ammonium nitrate fertilizer and blew up a federal building and killed over 200 people. Yet as far as I know none of the families of the deceased tried to sue the fertilizer manufacturer or the truck manufacturer. Despite the fact that McVeigh used both of these products to kill far more people than this individual did with a gun. And it makes sense you can't hold a manufacturer or business accountable if the consumer chooses to use their products in a dangerous or destructive way. How can you see a car manufacturer for a say fatal crash in which one of the drivers was clearly at fault? Now if the product itself was faulty or defective and failed in its intended task/use and it hurt someone as a result of this then it would make sense to sue the manufacturer.

 

[Pheroze]

@ Pheroze,
I might be wrong here but I don't think anyone is saying that a "private business should get immunity from citizens who claim against them". There are plenty of cases were I think a business deserved to get sued or even should have been sued but wasn't/ The problem/issue at least from what I gather is that this specific case is based on highly politicized motives for gun control. The gun manufacturer is being sued/held accountable for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual who chose to use their product in an illegal and tragic way. If this wasn't a gun manufacturer this suit probably wouldn't exist. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing- McVeigh made a car bomb- using a truck loaded with a bomb made from ammonium nitrate fertilizer and blew up a federal building and killed over 200 people. Yet as far as I know none of the families of the deceased tried to sue the fertilizer manufacturer or the truck manufacturer. Despite the fact that McVeigh used both of these products to kill far more people than this individual did with a gun. And it makes sense you can't hold a manufacturer or business accountable if the consumer chooses to use their products in a dangerous or destructive way. How can you see a car manufacturer for a say fatal crash in which one of the drivers was clearly at fault? Now if the product itself was faulty or defective and failed in its intended task/use and it hurt someone as a result of this then it would make sense to sue the manufacturer.

I rose to the words "tort reform" like a trout to a fly.

 

[sestoppelman]

Gun was legally made, met state and federal requirements on all levels and was criminally misused. Not possible for Rem or Bushmaster to know the intent of a buyer of their legal product any more than it is possible for Ford or GMC to know the buyers intent of their legal products. To retroactively rule that somehow Rem should have known that this turd was going to shoot up a school would be essentially an end to law and order. It cannot happen. We are all in sympathy with the parents. I cannot imagine the pain they have suffered. Unfortunately that is not a reason to sue the maker of a legal product that met all standards. If some lower court does rule this way, it will got to SCOTUS and even with the morons on the court would probably be overturned. Its just too obvious. The lawyers these people have should have informed them that the odds of prevailing are verrrrrry long.

 

[Red Leg]

I rose to the words "tort reform" like a trout to a fly.

LOL. And I love Shakespeare's "Henry the Sixth" See Part 2 Act 4 Scene 2

 

[Pheroze]

LOL. And I love Shakespeare's "Henry the Sixth" See Part 2 Act 4 Scene 2

Ah yes, as a prelude to bringing down the realm! Do so to destabilize society and allow the crown to fall.

 

[dory]

Utter bullsh****.
The kid that did that shooting was a fuc.....ed up person who should have been in a nut house. His family is the problem , most especially his dead mother. You don't buy a gun for an autistic and oppositional defiant person plain and simple.
The gun company did nothing wrong!

So if he had used an axe would the family want to sue Stanley Tool for the same thing? Or if he had gone in that school with a baseball bat, would they sue Louisville Slugger? I promise you that with either of these mentioned items you could kill just as many people as that sick SOB did, unless there was someone there armed and trained to use the weapon! End of rant.

Legend !!

 

[enysse]

The lawsuit is pure crap. I can understand going to court if the gun didn't work properly and malfunctioned, but it worked just fine. I work in the mental health profession and can tell you it was the shooters fault. The shoot should pay for the problems, unfortunately he is dead. Even as mental health care professional, I can tell you there is only so much you can do for a person, unless you lock them up and throw the key away. Free will prevails at the end of the day. And I tell this to all the anti-gun people every day. When someone wants to do something bad, they are going to do it one way or another.....trying to stop them is impossible.

 

[lcq]

The lawsuit is pure crap. I can understand going to court if the gun didn't work properly and malfunctioned, but it worked just fine. I work in the mental health profession and can tell you it was the shooters fault. The shoot should pay for the problems, unfortunately he is dead. Even as mental health care professional, I can tell you there is only so much you can do for a person, unless you lock them up and throw the key away. Free will prevails at the end of the day. And I tell this to all the anti-gun people every day. When someone wants to do something bad, they are going to do it one way or another.....trying to stop them is impossible.

in todays nanny state society personal responsibility is discouraged

 

[sestoppelman]

The only way you can stop people from doing bad things is, either incarcerate them forever in the case of repeat offenders, or execute them. Those that just go nuts and cause harm, as Eric says, pretty much impossible, unless we go down the "thought police" road. Actually this has already started. Its called political correctness. Witness what is going on in our so called institutions of higher learning, college. They are getting to be such a bunch of namby pamby pussies, they actually have told students that if they hear speech that makes them uncomfortable, they are supposed to report it to the campus cops!!! I am not kidding, this is actually happening in some places, soon it will be everywhere.