Remington Reaches $73 Million Settlement

[Jeff Porter]

I wonder if the settlement was hastened by the imminent demise of the NRA as a 2A lobby ?

 

[PopCharlie]

OMG.....the rifle was left in the car and the guy used handguns......but sue the makers of the scary looking rifle. Someone needs a spine

Having personally been through something similar, I can tell you that facts, who is right, who is wrong, and even the law doesn't matter. It's totally and completely about money and nothing else.

PopCharlie

 

[clowdis]

What this suit has done is open up the road to suing the automotive companies, for the same litigation. They have tried before without much luck to sue the automotive companies but it was easier to set a precedent by hitting the "evil gunmaker" for damages. Now the precedent has been set and they will start on the automotive companies (especially the performance models) and bleed them dry. Automotive is a much richer field than gunmakers.

 

[NETim]

What this suit has done is open up the road to suing the automotive companies, for the same litigation. They have tried before without much luck to sue the automotive companies but it was easier to set a precedent by hitting the "evil gunmaker" for damages. Now the precedent has been set and they will start on the automotive companies (especially the performance models) and bleed them dry. Automotive is a much richer field than gunmakers.

Don't forget about the booze companies. The next time I get clobbered by a drunk driver, (and live), I will be fabulously wealthy.

 

[gdbleb]

Don't forget about the booze companies. The next time I get clobbered by a drunk driver, (and live), I will be fabulously wealthy.

Obesity lawsuits will eclipse them all.

 

[AccelR8]

20 years ago when I was with Chrysler we were briefed on case in which a law student had bought a Ford truck, an F150 if I remember correctly, absolutely beat the crap out of it, virtually destroying it and took it back to the dealer and said “I want a new truck.” Of course they said no. He then filed lawsuits against everybody including Ford. The basis was, Ford ran advertisements showing the truck power-sliding round corners while off-road, going airborne, bounding over extremely rough terrain, hauling big overladen trailers through construction sites. Ford in effect endorsed such use and stated this was what their trucks were designed for and by not giving the guy a new truck they were guilty and liable for something or another and should pay him lots of money.

I don't know how that went. It was not a high profile case, more of a local thing and I left the industry about that time.

 

[sandwarrior]

The latest 'gun violence' figures are about 12,000 murders per year with firearms. NEVER do you see the latest death toll for drug overdoses which is about 93,000. Where's the 'epidemic'?Hmmm

Maybe we gun owners ought to sue the AG (USA) for not doing anything about this 'epidemic'. Sue them for not allowing US to handle this 'epidemic' when it affects us. Sue individual states for 'lack of enforcement'.

 

[Drolds72]

Or sue the alcohol company for causing the drunkenness.

I am sure the Sackler family, and all of the tobacco companies would agree with you.

 

[Ccrider]

We can only speculate about why “Remington” settled. Did they believe that there was merit to one or more of the claims and that they could ultimately be found liable? We’re they concerned that the continued litigation was doing irreparable harm to their image, or the new image they are trying to create. Was it cheaper to settle than to continue to litigate? It would be neat to know how much they spent on litigation cost prior ton settlement.

Also, depending on the policy, the insurance carrier may have reserved the right to settle without Remington’s consent. So, we really do not know whether Remington or it’s insurance carrier made the decision.

If it was Remington, it seems par for the course. Mediocre firearms, mediocre, at best, legal defense work. Does not seem like they even thought to negotiate a confidentiality clause as part of the settlement agreement.

 

[jdh47]

We have a huge problem with the Judicial in this Nation. Much of the problem lies with Congress being occupied by mostly lawyers. Ambrose Bierce's quote from The Devils Dictionary on the definition of a lawyer holds a lot of truth.
Lawyer: "One skilled in the circumvention of the law."
The problem is there never should've been a lawsuit in the first place.

 

[Ccrider]

Open access to an unbiased judiciary is essential to our freedom. If the suit was meritless, the onus was on Remington to challenge it early on and get it dismissed.

 

[epc308]

The latest 'gun violence' figures are about 12,000 murders per year with firearms. NEVER do you see the latest death toll for drug overdoses which is about 93,000. Where's the 'epidemic'?Hmmm

Maybe we gun owners ought to sue the AG (USA) for not doing anything about this 'epidemic'. Sue them for not allowing US to handle this 'epidemic' when it affects us. Sue individual states for 'lack of enforcement'.

When gun violence and firearms deaths came up 4-5 years ago on social media, I did a fair amount of research before responding. I learned the alcohol related deaths involving vehicles eclipsed firearms by a significant amount, then posted the results of what I found.
The question I posed in reply was- "Where is the clamor to ban alcohol?"
I had no replies.

 

[SEM]

Seriously you know this is all orchestrated by a bunch of glory seeking dimwits that have no consequence for THEIR actions, Other than reaping riches, The puppets of those that have taken our freedom a long time ago, We are just realizing it now ?

Maybe I need another cup of coffee

 

[darkangel_r2]

Why would Remington settle? No one who buys their stuff cares about these sandy hook money grubbers and their ambulance chasing lawyers.

 

[DHuffman]

Having personally been through something similar, I can tell you that facts, who is right, who is wrong, and even the law doesn't matter. It's totally and completely about money and nothing else.

PopCharlie

Exactly funds will be disbursed and everyone bears responsibility, the negotiations decide how much each party is liable for.

Just the way it is right or wrong

 

[darkangel_r2]

Remington likely did not settle the policyholder did.

Your insurance appoints attorneys to defend them, you are along for the ride. Thier goal is to make it go away as cheaply as possible within the limits of your coverage.

I doubt any settlement is offered or course of action decided on without the say of the company in question.

If you personally or your company have the resources to take it all the way to the end in a court of law regardless the outcome exposing yourself or company to damages beyond your coverage that's great. In reality it's a risk few can take.

I'm not defending the settlement but most lawsuits quickly spin out of control of the defendant.

I'd do everything in my power to take it to a court of law. Put that judge under the gun to set precedence to hold a manufacturer liable for the misuse of a legally sold and purchased product. Settling implies some degree of culpability and encourages similar legal action by awarding these clowns 73 million dollars. Neither are a good thing.

This is legal warfare against people and companies that the establishment doesn't like.

 

[John11-87]

Pretty unsettling outcome, sets a scary precedent going forward. Supreme court should have done its job in 2019 and not even let this case go forward. IMHO

John

 

[Catfur]

Remington likely did not settle the policyholder did.

Your insurance appoints attorneys to defend them, you are along for the ride. Thier goal is to make it go away as cheaply as possible within the limits of your coverage.

If you personally or your company have the resources to take it all the way to the end in a court of law regardless the outcome exposing yourself or company to damages beyond your coverage that's great. In reality it's a risk few can take.

I'm not defending the settlement but most lawsuits quickly spin out of control of the defendant.

Also, Remington Arms Company, the defendant, no longer exists as a going concern. So there was nobody but the insurance carriers left on the defense.

Nevertheless, this is bad societal precedent (settlements aren’t legal precedent).

 

[Ccrider]

I doubt any settlement is offered or course of action decided on without the say of the company in question.

Just cause you doubt it don’t make it so. While I respect your right to your opinion, you really don’t know what you are talking about here.

I agree with you that this litigation should have been fought to the end.

 

[darkangel_r2]

Just cause you doubt it don’t make it so. While I respect your right to your opinion, you really don’t know what you are talking about here.

Are you inferring that remington didn't have a say in offering a settlement or taking it to trial when they are listed on court case? Reminton arms Co V Soto.