SCOTUS Rules Gun Manufacturer Can be sued

[WillBrink]

Considering the make up of the court and prior legal precedent and law passed by Congress, a surprising decision. It seems based on a very narrow aspect, which will get them no place, but again, will use up $ resources of the company being sued which may effectively put them out of biz as well as a ripple effect within the industry:

Supreme Court refuses to block lawsuit against gun manufacturer brought by Sandy Hook families


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ed/2565344001/

[Outlander Systems]

Is anyone tired of all that winning, yet?

[Averageman]

The Automobile folks are gonna love this...

[BoringGuy45]

They didn't rule that they can be sued. They just didn't block the case.

I'd imagine it's all Roberts. The guy is just dickless. He knows what's right but he turns away anything controversial so he doesn't have to rule on it.

Also according to the article, the 2005 law is not absolute. However, I'm guessing they're going to find out that Remington is not liable, because what these families are alleging is that because the AR-15 is not designed for civilian use, they were responsible for marketing and selling it to civilians.

Honestly, it could plant the seeds for overturning a lot of bans.

That is, if Roberts ever takes a 2A case again.

[WillBrink]

They didn't rule that they can be sued. They just didn't block the case.

I'd imagine it's all Roberts. The guy is just dickless. He knows what's right but he turns away anything controversial so he doesn't have to rule on it.

It's effectively the same thing right? It clears the way for Remington to be sued and there's no higher court to prevent it, so it goes to court if I understand the results of their ruling.

[BoringGuy45]

It's effectively the same thing right? It clears the way for Remington to be sued and there's no higher court to prevent it, so it goes to court if I understand the results of their ruling.

They didn't block the suit from going forward, but they didn't acknowledge that the case was valid. The SC just basically punted.

[SteyrAUG]

It's effectively the same thing right? It clears the way for Remington to be sued and there's no higher court to prevent it, so it goes to court if I understand the results of their ruling.

Ever since the million dollar McDonalds coffee case, I think these things became inevitable. The problem is you can't sue Adam Lanza or his mom, so they look around and see who has the deep pockets.

[Mozart]

The Automobile folks are gonna love this...

Especially due to the “marketing” angle of the suit. Let me paint a picture:

Some satan of a kid sees a Ford Mustang commercial, the car doing some crazy drifting and burnouts and launch-control starts, etc. Goes and steals a mustang, immediately does all the badass stuff in the adverts, wipes out into a school bus and kills 20 kids. Ford can now get sued. Ford did not sell a car to that kid. The kid stole it and misused it. Doesn’t matter. “Professional Driver On A Closed Course.” Doesn’t matter.

[MorphCross]

Can anyone tell me how many military vehicles have Aluminum stamping as their frames? I can wait for responses...

On healthcare, the costs have to do with the insurance paperwork hospitals and doctor offices deal with as much as any other factor. I support a pharmaceutical company that owns a patent on a drug getting to determine the price on that drug as long as a generic will be released after 15-20 years of sole source ownership by the original developer. Patents force companies to develop original alternatives that could be more effective or sufficiently effective while having less side effects. At that point the free market gets to determine if solution Alpha is worth the cost over solution Gamma, or if Solution Omega is good enough at an even lower price.

I would say the same thing of surgeons charging more for their expertise on a difficult procedure based on the outcomes spread across a wide patient pool.

Setting minor fractures, x-rays, and other common procedures should not have extremely high costs. Just like Ambulance rides should be a stable price near major metropolitan areas. Life Flight should only be used in the most extreme of scenarios i.e. getting a person in a remote locale where hospitals are hours away.

Getting back to the original topic, we all know the motive is money driven by the lawyers of the families. Judgements can be appealed and often get heavily trimmed in the appeal process. This case seeks to assign responsibility where we know there is none. Judges are Lawyers that have been appointed to a position paid from tax dollars so it is of little surprise that Tort law gets so much leeway.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Actually, if you read the details of the McDonald's case you very well may draw the conclusion that it was a justified suit.

Agree. People like to hold that up as the peak of abuse but it is more justified than a majority of tort lawsuits out there. The coffee was at over 180 degrees and McDonald's had had numerous complaints about how ridiculously hot their coffee was over a long period of time. There was no justification to serve coffee that hot. For comparison, household water heaters are usually set at 125 and rarely over 140 because of the burn danger. The woman who was injured suffered severe burns on her crotch and thighs. The case was simple: severe physical injuries caused by a known dangerous condition that had no justification and which the defendant had been repeatedly warned about.

Especially due to the “marketing” angle of the suit. Let me paint a picture:

Some satan of a kid sees a Ford Mustang commercial, the car doing some crazy drifting and burnouts and launch-control starts, etc. Goes and steals a mustang, immediately does all the badass stuff in the adverts, wipes out into a school bus and kills 20 kids. Ford can now get sued. Ford did not sell a car to that kid. The kid stole it and misused it. Doesn’t matter. “Professional Driver On A Closed Course.” Doesn’t matter.

Realistic. Arriving within a few years no doubt. (seriously)