Posted on 09/08/2004 7:37:36 PM PDT by Pharmboy
So was that the basis of the settlement? I mean the manufacturer was only liable because they sold to a dealer that had poor security for their weapons? So if a gun maker only sells to dealers that meet some sort of screening for safety they would not be liable?
You can read a reply in # 40 that sums it up, but absent the government taking over the responsibility like they have, then Bushmaster should take ordinary care to oversee their dealers and if they don't then it is not unreasonable to hold them partially liable. I have shopped at the old Bullseye and they didn't take what I would consider ordinary care to prevent theft.
Just trying to figure out on what basis they had to settle. Would it be like a tobacco co. being liable for selling its cigs to a store that had a poor system for restricting minors from making purchases?
It would be hard to quantify any harm caused by a store selling cigarettes to minors so I don't see a direct link that could lead to liability. With government defining and supposedly enforcing the rules on selling to minors I don't see any tobacco company liability.
I was trying to make a comparison to a legal product that can cause harm if a store is negligent -
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.