Remington Arms Settles with Sandy Hook Victims

[VikingsGuy]

“This landmark, historic victory sends a forceful and compelling message to manufacturers, and to the insurance and banking industries that support them,” Hockley said. “This is a high-risk market, it is not profitable and you will be held accountable.”

The most immediate but broad consequence of the settlement is that legal claims based on consumer protection statutes can now potentially survive the PLCAA barrier, Feldman said. Many states and jurisdictions across the U.S. have similar consumer protection laws on the books, she noted, so the settlement potentially creates a template for holding gun manufacturers accountable.

One of the biggest pending cases against gun manufacturers, she said, is the government of Mexico’s lawsuit, filed last year in federal court in Massachusetts, against Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. and other gun manufacturers for feeding a market in criminal use of guns in Mexico.

Sandy Hook $73-million settlement with Remington is not just about money

The families of nine Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims sued Remington, a case that focused on the marketing of the Bushmaster rifle.

www.latimes.com

The "flooding" argument is going to be a tough one for firearms folks, just as it was for oxy-makers.

As for the "landmark" nature - folks in the industry and the insurers understand the actual near-irrelevance of this trustee setlement.

 

[Sytes]

The real lesson was that they could have settled for under $5,000 even as late as a week before trial, but their arrogance (including the judges noting of arrogancy of McDs key corporate witness) got them smacked. As some around here say, "stupid prizes for stupid games."

Businesses have to be smart about many things, incl. litigation management. Failure on any of these things can be costly.

Disagree. A person accidentally flipping coffee onto their lap of 700 total claims of hot coffee is the arrogant one to demand payment for their folly. McDonalds is not in the business of paying out over Tom, dock, and Harriet for their own stupidity. Coffee's hot.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Coffee's hot.

Sure is. The issue here was unnecessarily hot, and Mickey d knew it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

They didn’t cut their losses, I don’t know what you don’t understand. This has all been tried before and they (gun manufacturers) were found they can’t be held liable for how someone uses the product. It could’ve paid out zero dollars and instead pay out 75 million. Again they didn’t cut their losses. They found a way to lose

You are missing the "they". Rem is gone. The Trustee needs to get these liabilities wrapped up. The insurers bleeding litigation costs with no company to provide testimony/guidance/decision making. Their calculation is different and this outcome shows that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Winmag said it. The settlement opens up a can of worms. This allows ANY victim to sue the defendant, the manufacturer et al. Whether it be a firearm, soup can, automobile and on and on. Our litigious society is looking for the something for nothing. Not saying this is always the case. But, seems so. MTG

This doesn't open up anything. No jury finding, no new arguments (these claims have been made before), no new law - just a cash settlement with an odd collection of remaining settlees.

That is not to say they won't try to litigate the firearms industry to death - just saying the particular settlement is irrelevant in the bigger picture.

 

[Nick87]

Remington died because of many catastrophic business choices and shocking loss of quality under that management. As such, they were bankrupt before this case got deep in the process. This was settled by bean counters from the insurance companies and bankruptcy trustees. This was not a business decision by anybody - as the business was so poorly run that they couldn't make money during the flushest times for firearms anyone can remember.

Yah I didn't mean that remington went out of business because of the lawsuit. I was referring more to there loss in the suit ie there insurers.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Disagree. A person accidentally flipping coffee onto their lap of 700 total claims of hot coffee is the arrogant one to demand payment for their folly. McDonalds is not in the business of paying out over Tom, dock, and Harriet for their own stupidity. Coffee's hot.

In 975AD if your goat drank in my stream and later my family got sick and I complained to you and you told me I didn't know what I was talking about, that your goat did not cause our illness and to go pound sand. If I was unsatisfied I would grab a broadsword and kill your goat (and maybe even you) as a form of resolution. But 1100 years later we have a more refined approach - if folks disagree they submit their dispute to a group of their peers. The peers decide. These "new" rules for settling disagreements are over 500yrs old. Plenty of time for business owners to understand that dispute resolution by jury trial is part of doing business - and like other parts of doing business it should be done well. McDs did not handle this well.

I think our tort law needs reform no doubt - but the underlying premise is solid, and businesses have understood the rules of the road for decades - don't feel sorry for them if they screw it up.

 

[JT88]

This doesn't open up anything. No jury finding, no new arguments (these claims have been made before), no new law - just a cash settlement with an odd collection of remaining settlees.

That is not to say they won't try to litigate the firearms industry to death - just saying the particular settlement is irrelevant in the bigger picture.

I disagree. Even if it's not a legal precedent, it still sets a precedent in the minds of a lot of people. You don't think it sets a standard of culpability for a gun manufacturer to pay out 73 million dollars to victims families?

It implies guilt to pay for something if you're innocent, just like you don't apologize if you didn't commit a crime

 

[VikingsGuy]

I disagree. Even if it's not a legal precedent, it still sets a precedent in the minds of a lot of people. You don't think it sets a standard of culpability for a gun manufacturer to pay out 73 million dollars to victims families?

It implies guilt to pay for something if you're innocent, just like you don't apologize if you didn't commit a crime

Did Ford paying out for exploding gas tanks end the engineering of cars?

Again this fight is real and it is here to stay, but this page in a big book isn’t all that interesting.

 

[Sytes]

Sure is. The issue here was unnecessarily hot, and Mickey d knew it.

Disagree. FACTS: The setting here is the lady was wearing sweatpants. The sweatpants absorbed the "hot coffee" thus, due to her actions, she burned herself. It was not, "unnecessarily hot" In the transcripts, the specific portion regarding WHY she was burned focused on the spongelike sweat pant material.
Again, 500 million cups of coffee sold annually. 700 total complaints of too hot coffee. Not just one year - total complaints up to that court case discovery. Pretending for shits n grins, that this was an annual average of complaints, that worked to 0.0000014% !

Frivolous lawsuits that even the judge had to revise the Jury's award to the point McD's and the coffee between sweatpant legs came to a confidential settlement. I've dealt with frivolous lawsuits in the retail sector. Companies work settlements - TO AN EXTENT. There is a drawn line where some aspects are beyond... and the Company says no - rather work this one through the courts...

This is an absurd Jury - as I shared earlier. Apparently, we disagree - spill hot coffee on oneself, it's the big $ fault regardless - same as Remington. The social media of dislocated mob rule "justice" is the downfall of juries.

 

[FI460]

Disagree. FACTS: The setting here is the lady was wearing sweatpants. The sweatpants absorbed the "hot coffee" thus, due to her actions, she burned herself. It was not, "unnecessarily hot" In the transcripts, the specific portion regarding WHY she was burned focused on the spongelike sweat pant material.
Again, 500 million cups of coffee sold annually. 700 total complaints of too hot coffee. Not just one year - total complaints up to that court case discovery. Pretending for shits n grins, that this was an annual average of complaints, that worked to 0.0000014% !

Frivolous lawsuits that even the judge had to revise the Jury's award to the point McD's and the coffee between sweatpant legs came to a confidential settlement. I've dealt with frivolous lawsuits in the retail sector. Companies work settlements - TO AN EXTENT. There is a drawn line where some aspects are beyond... and the Company says no - rather work this one through the courts...

This is an absurd Jury - as I shared earlier. Apparently, we disagree - spill hot coffee on oneself, it's the big $ fault regardless - same as Remington. The social media of dislocated mob rule "justice" is the downfall of juries.

2 points:
1) The article shared above cites 700 cases of burns. Not complaints of too hot coffee.
2) Social media caused the downfall of juries in a 1994 coffee case?

We all know we live in a grossly litigious society. It's been that way for decades.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

You are missing the "they". Rem is gone. The Trustee needs to get these liabilities wrapped up. The insurers bleeding litigation costs with no company to provide testimony/guidance/decision making. Their calculation is different and this outcome shows that.

That's a great point... didn't think about that, but yes totally agree.

 

[sapperJ24]

Disagree. FACTS: The setting here is the lady was wearing sweatpants. The sweatpants absorbed the "hot coffee" thus, due to her actions, she burned herself. It was not, "unnecessarily hot" In the transcripts, the specific portion regarding WHY she was burned focused on the spongelike sweat pant material.
Again, 500 million cups of coffee sold annually. 700 total complaints of too hot coffee. Not just one year - total complaints up to that court case discovery. Pretending for shits n grins, that this was an annual average of complaints, that worked to 0.0000014% !

Frivolous lawsuits that even the judge had to revise the Jury's award to the point McD's and the coffee between sweatpant legs came to a confidential settlement. I've dealt with frivolous lawsuits in the retail sector. Companies work settlements - TO AN EXTENT. There is a drawn line where some aspects are beyond... and the Company says no - rather work this one through the courts...

This is an absurd Jury - as I shared earlier. Apparently, we disagree - spill hot coffee on oneself, it's the big $ fault regardless - same as Remington. The social media of dislocated mob rule "justice" is the downfall of juries.

There was never any dispute over the fact she spilled coffee on herself. The coffee served was excessively, perhaps the jury felt dangerously, hot.

"Most home coffee makers produce coffee that is between 135 and 150 degrees... McDonald's restaurants served coffee between 180 and 190 degrees. At this temperature, spilled coffee causes third degree burns in less than three seconds. Other restaurants served coffee at 160 degrees, which takes twenty seconds to cause third degree burns. That is usually enough time to wipe away the coffee."

 

[sapperJ24]

Some of the ads @wllm1313 was talking earlier about may be in the linked pdf. The pdf is from the Violence Policy Center which advocates for a safer America. The pdf also illumines how some may make a connection between the ads and mass shootings, and quotes a passage from the Shooting Sports Retailer 2013 How to Sell Issue.

"A driving factor in the gun conglomerate’s marketing strategy for assault weapons is the aggressive promotion of the military pedigree of its products. In its advertisements and catalogs, as seen in the previous pages, the imagery and language used to sell Bushmaster assault rifles focuses on their use in offensive, anti-personnel situations and environments. While such ads never detail what ill-defined “justice” is to be meted out with these guns by their civilian owners, mass shootings like those at Sandy Hook and now Nashville offer one horrific answer.

The Bushmaster advertising and catalog copy samples featured in this report illustrate what happens when a gun company decides to cater to the “wants and needs” of “potential buyers…interested only in tactical guns” and their “military-ish looks and features.”"

https://vpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Bushmaster2018.pdf

 

[Sytes]

2 points:
1) The article shared above cites 700 cases of burns. Not complaints of too hot coffee.
2) Social media caused the downfall of juries in a 1994 coffee case?

We all know we live in a grossly litigious society. It's been that way for decades.

Fair point regarding 1994 and the McD's jury -. 1994 was the age of Geocities, etc. Was the birth of social media at that time, I recant my comment about the McDonalds jury influenced by social media. I agree with your comment.
However for sake of modern juries... It's about making money and not being the bad guy - social media mob influence - preconceived decisions in high profile cases.

700 complaints / varied levels of self imposed spills along with a few employees who dropped the coffee onto the driver at the drive through. This is a matter of semantics. Same difference. How you portray is intended with the same effect.

Interesting foot note: The 700 complaints about hot coffee was a total was from 1982 - 1992. That equates to 70... That's right... SEVENTY claims per year. Legit? unfounded? false claims? and some actual self caused accidental spills of hot coffee. 70 claims (not factual occurrences) of 500 million "hot coffees" served per year. It's not rocket science. That is an actual 0.00000014%!!!!

If a company had this quantity of complaints and the determination of how many are false claims to begin... Pretty flipping amazing! If this was a subject of Climate change statistics or Public land statistics that supported the vocal HT crowd's opinions... this would be IN YOUR FACE STATISTICS. Convenient how that level of complaints is disregarded by those same people.

499,999,930 of 500 million annually people had no problem managing their "hot McDonalds coffee"... Again, it's not rocket science.


Onto Remington (as labeled by the media...):

A driving factor in the gun conglomerate’s marketing strategy for assault weapons is the aggressive promotion of the military pedigree of its products.

I know many believe the second Amendment is about hunting though the fact, as shared by Thomas Jefferson, principle drafter of our Bill of Rights:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

 

[Finalshot]

Limited by what judge? I thought the insurers agreed to pay their policy limits.

Great question. I read about it in a an article printed recently in a financial magazine. I'll see if I can find the article and give you a link. It may have been Bloomberg or Financial Times, something like that. Sorry for not having a citation handy.

 

[longbow51]

The horror isn't in hunting with the black guns...it's when 6 year olds get sawed in half by them. The hunting community would get a lot farther with the public by showing some empathy to the families of the victims of Sandy Hook rather than entrenching the "over my dead body" rhetoric.

I use guns to hunt too, but don't feel the need to carry around a damn-near-automatic tactical weapon with bump stocks and the like. A bolt action .270 or pump 12 ga. isn't ever going to get banned.

You mean your long-range sniper rifle and your trench gun/street sweeper? Both weapons of war. ARs will never be enough.

 

[Farmerj]

Interesting statement released by NSSF…

NSSF Releases Statement on Sandy Hook Settlement | Gun Talk

Yesterday it was announced that the insurance companies representing the former Remington Outdoor Company* had settled the lawsuit brought against it by...

www.guntalk.com

 

[glassy]

As far as describing my perspective I don't need to go into detail to point out your talking out of your ass.

There you go....just tell the other person they're talking out of their ass and that should sufficiently make your point. It's no wonder the public has such a negative view of hunters.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Touche, longbow. Fair enough. I will make the point, though, that AR literally has the word "assault" right in it.

assault
verb - make a physical attack on

Just sayin....

Actually, AR stands for Armalite Rifle.