Posted on 02/23/2016 8:07:07 AM PST by VRWCmember
(CNN) -- To hear Jackie Barden and David Wheeler describe their lives today is a master class in hope.
On December 14, 2012, Barden's youngest son, 7-year-old Daniel, and Wheeler's son, 6-year-old Ben, were among those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
"(My husband) Mark and I still have a great life, and we really have to remember that," Barden said, adding that their two children bring the family an enormous amount of love and strength. "We are fortunate with what we have with the two of them."
.... "Our families deserve that day in court," said Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing nine victims' families and a teacher who survived. "We believe they should be accountable to their fair share of responsibility." .....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
They are suing because lawfare and frivolous law suits are all the rage right now.
Don’t forget whether or not to sue Hanes or Leggs if, as the anti-gun control meme says, a woman is found in an alley raped and then later strangled by her own pantyhose.
More “false flag” to make people believe that Sandy Hook really did happen and was not a government creation to inflame the pubic against the second amendment? < /sarc >
I suppose every victim of a drunk driver will now be suing GM
That kid stole the gun he used. How is the manufacturer liable? They made a product that worked.
I’d say so using liberal logic.
I don't think the lawsuit will go anywhere but how do you figure that filing it violates the law?
“What if a car dealer sales a car to a person with numerous DUIs on their record?? Guilty for not checking their background?
What if the government knowingly allowed illegals into the country and they killed someone. Should that elected official be allowed to be sued in court???? “
Perfect analogy!
There. Fixed it, although it was correct both ways.
[[”Say a gun retailer handed a gun to a visibly intoxicated person, then they’re not subject to the immunity,” said Lytton, who studies gun industry litigation.]]
Hmmm- was the puke who shot the kids drunk when he bought the gun?
This would bring it back to the local government who approved the building design.
This would be an interesting angle to pursue.
Plus, would not the school district bear the greater burden of protecting the kids?
They determine who can or cannot bring weapons on campus.
They determine the level of security at the school.
This could blow up real quick with the right attorney.
See post #5.
I don't recall a blue print or photo of all that that was destroyed within weeks after the crime.
A waste of a lot of taxpayers money for what reason?
What’s next . . . suing beer/wine/liquor makers when a drunk driver kills someone? Or how about Louisville Slugger if someone beats another to death with a bat? I think the next time another driver runs into my car, I’ll sue both car makers . . . yeah, that’s the ticket.
the lawsuit itself -- not the filing of the lawsuit -- violates the law. Since the statute specifically protects the manufacturers from lawsuits for the criminal misuse of their products, this lawsuit ON ITS FACE violates the law. Regardless of the specious argument the lawyer uses in trying to exploit an exception within the law, it should be categorically ruled as a prima facie violation of the law.
If the driver is driving a Hundai you would certainly have a case since Hundai recklessly marketed their vehicles as being able to pay better attention to the surroundings and road conditions than drivers to keep inept drivers from having accidents.
Exactly, they should sue the kid's mother who allowed him to steal her gun. Wait, that won't work; she's dead. OK, so they should sue the doctors who prescribed the medications that turned him into a psychotic zombie; probably not a big enough payoff there. Maybe they should sue the pharmaceutical companies that developed and marketed the drugs. Probably has more merit.
The phrase "boy that's a stretch" doesn't even begin to cover it. The plaintiffs are going to get their collective backsides handed to them. I hope they are counter sued and lose massive $ to cover Remington's legal costs and punitive damages. Even more, I hope the {expletive} scumbag sucking lawyers that talked them into this suit get censured or even have their law licenses put up for review.
According to one source, "negligent entrustment" requires the plaintiffs show:
Negligent entrustment is generally found where the entrustee had a reputation or record that showed his propensity to be dangerous through possession of such an instrumentality.
Given that the AR-15 style rifle is (and has been for years) the single most popular style rifle in the US, and that there are literally tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of them out there causing harm to no-one... You could argue that the AR-15 is one of the safest (in terms of accidents rate or intentional harm per 1k sold) rifles. So rather than a demonstrated propensity for violence with AR-15s, the exact opposite is true. This suit is doomed.
These greedy parents are either unhinged (”someone killed my child, so someone should pay, even if it’s not the same someone”) or they are evil (”my child is dead, I wonder if I can get rich from this”). Either way, the courts should refuse to reward those parents.
If the parents don’t drop it, the courts should punish those greedy parents by making them pay attorney costs for the gun manufacturer, the ammo manufacturer, the car maker who made the car the murder used, the clothing company that made the jeans he wore, the food company that made the breakfast he ate that morning, and anyone else they file a frivolous lawsuit against.
Of course.
AFTER they sue you for "negligent entrustment" with a deadly vehicle... You allowed your car to be stolen.
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.