Does this means I can sue a car manufacturer if I get hit by a drunk driver?
https://www.cnbc.com/...ewtown-shooting.html
https://www.cnbc.com/...ewtown-shooting.html
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [Art M.]
[ In reply to ]
This is a really bad precedent to set. Hopefully the plaintiffs lose either at trial or on appeal.
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [windywave]
[ In reply to ]
I can't comment if I agree without seeing the marketing.
I don't equate it to suing a car maker over a drunk driving accident. I equate it to suing cig companies over youth smoking.
Like the cigs, there was a perfectly legal and rightful usage of cigs by certain people. But, the marketing was deemed to (in someone's opinions) to draw in youth.
If I had to guess, that would maybe be the angle.
But again, I can't say if I agree with the ruling without seeing the evidence.
I will say, I'm pretty disturbed by some of the gun magazines for sale at Tractor Supply checkout counters. Basically almost like "urban sniping 101" and "urban warfare 101" on the cover and articles. Really weird messed up stuff versus what I grew up with, which was seeing buck and boar articles on those kind of magazines.
There IS a perverse subset of owners into the whole "armchair warrior" kind of thing. Almost like they fantasize about it.
I had a cell phone picture of the magazine once, I sent it to a friend, but can't find it right now.
I don't equate it to suing a car maker over a drunk driving accident. I equate it to suing cig companies over youth smoking.
Like the cigs, there was a perfectly legal and rightful usage of cigs by certain people. But, the marketing was deemed to (in someone's opinions) to draw in youth.
If I had to guess, that would maybe be the angle.
But again, I can't say if I agree with the ruling without seeing the evidence.
I will say, I'm pretty disturbed by some of the gun magazines for sale at Tractor Supply checkout counters. Basically almost like "urban sniping 101" and "urban warfare 101" on the cover and articles. Really weird messed up stuff versus what I grew up with, which was seeing buck and boar articles on those kind of magazines.
There IS a perverse subset of owners into the whole "armchair warrior" kind of thing. Almost like they fantasize about it.
I had a cell phone picture of the magazine once, I sent it to a friend, but can't find it right now.
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [burnthesheep]
[ In reply to ]
Urban warefare is what you'll need when the Gubment goes rogue and comes after you.
You've already lost.
Sad.
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
You've already lost.
Sad.
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [BLeP]
[ In reply to ]
So this may be a stretch, but of course it is the LR. But what about suing a city or state because of their sanctuary status. Marketing that brings in illegals that happens to murder your family member?
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [Art M.]
[ In reply to ]
gotta blame someone...
sports cars are marketed to go fast.. so if I speed and kill myself or someone else ?
sports cars are marketed to go fast.. so if I speed and kill myself or someone else ?
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [burnthesheep]
[ In reply to ]
burnthesheep wrote:
I can't comment if I agree without seeing the marketing. I don't equate it to suing a car maker over a drunk driving accident. I equate it to suing cig companies over youth smoking.
Like the cigs, there was a perfectly legal and rightful usage of cigs by certain people. But, the marketing was deemed to (in someone's opinions) to draw in youth.
If I had to guess, that would maybe be the angle.
But again, I can't say if I agree with the ruling without seeing the evidence.
I will say, I'm pretty disturbed by some of the gun magazines for sale at Tractor Supply checkout counters. Basically almost like "urban sniping 101" and "urban warfare 101" on the cover and articles. Really weird messed up stuff versus what I grew up with, which was seeing buck and boar articles on those kind of magazines.
There IS a perverse subset of owners into the whole "armchair warrior" kind of thing. Almost like they fantasize about it.
I had a cell phone picture of the magazine once, I sent it to a friend, but can't find it right now.
How can they say they marketed the gun to Lanza. His mom bought it not him. And he killed her and took the gun. And the shooting was because his mom "loved" her students more than him. Does not sound like it had anything to do with any supposed marketing towards youth. Wouldn't you have to establish actual causation to win? Not just that it might lead to some other kid killing some other people?
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [spntrxi]
[ In reply to ]
spntrxi wrote:
gotta blame someone... sports cars are marketed to go fast.. so if I speed and kill myself or someone else ?
That was the first analogy that popped to mind
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [patf]
[ In reply to ]
patf wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:
I can't comment if I agree without seeing the marketing. I don't equate it to suing a car maker over a drunk driving accident. I equate it to suing cig companies over youth smoking.
Like the cigs, there was a perfectly legal and rightful usage of cigs by certain people. But, the marketing was deemed to (in someone's opinions) to draw in youth.
If I had to guess, that would maybe be the angle.
But again, I can't say if I agree with the ruling without seeing the evidence.
I will say, I'm pretty disturbed by some of the gun magazines for sale at Tractor Supply checkout counters. Basically almost like "urban sniping 101" and "urban warfare 101" on the cover and articles. Really weird messed up stuff versus what I grew up with, which was seeing buck and boar articles on those kind of magazines.
There IS a perverse subset of owners into the whole "armchair warrior" kind of thing. Almost like they fantasize about it.
I had a cell phone picture of the magazine once, I sent it to a friend, but can't find it right now.
How can they say they marketed the gun to Lanza. His mom bought it not him. And he killed her and took the gun. And the shooting was because his mom "loved" her students more than him. Does not sound like it had anything to do with any supposed marketing towards youth. Wouldn't you have to establish actual causation to win? Not just that it might lead to some other kid killing some other people?
Immaterial to the fact they are being sued foe their marketing
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [windywave]
[ In reply to ]
windywave wrote:
patf wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:
I can't comment if I agree without seeing the marketing. I don't equate it to suing a car maker over a drunk driving accident. I equate it to suing cig companies over youth smoking.
Like the cigs, there was a perfectly legal and rightful usage of cigs by certain people. But, the marketing was deemed to (in someone's opinions) to draw in youth.
If I had to guess, that would maybe be the angle.
But again, I can't say if I agree with the ruling without seeing the evidence.
I will say, I'm pretty disturbed by some of the gun magazines for sale at Tractor Supply checkout counters. Basically almost like "urban sniping 101" and "urban warfare 101" on the cover and articles. Really weird messed up stuff versus what I grew up with, which was seeing buck and boar articles on those kind of magazines.
There IS a perverse subset of owners into the whole "armchair warrior" kind of thing. Almost like they fantasize about it.
I had a cell phone picture of the magazine once, I sent it to a friend, but can't find it right now.
How can they say they marketed the gun to Lanza. His mom bought it not him. And he killed her and took the gun. And the shooting was because his mom "loved" her students more than him. Does not sound like it had anything to do with any supposed marketing towards youth. Wouldn't you have to establish actual causation to win? Not just that it might lead to some other kid killing some other people?
Immaterial to the fact they are being sued foe their marketing
So it is not a wrongful death suit? How can you sue someone for their marketing?
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [patf]
[ In reply to ]
patf wrote:
windywave wrote:
patf wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:
I can't comment if I agree without seeing the marketing. I don't equate it to suing a car maker over a drunk driving accident. I equate it to suing cig companies over youth smoking.
Like the cigs, there was a perfectly legal and rightful usage of cigs by certain people. But, the marketing was deemed to (in someone's opinions) to draw in youth.
If I had to guess, that would maybe be the angle.
But again, I can't say if I agree with the ruling without seeing the evidence.
I will say, I'm pretty disturbed by some of the gun magazines for sale at Tractor Supply checkout counters. Basically almost like "urban sniping 101" and "urban warfare 101" on the cover and articles. Really weird messed up stuff versus what I grew up with, which was seeing buck and boar articles on those kind of magazines.
There IS a perverse subset of owners into the whole "armchair warrior" kind of thing. Almost like they fantasize about it.
I had a cell phone picture of the magazine once, I sent it to a friend, but can't find it right now.
How can they say they marketed the gun to Lanza. His mom bought it not him. And he killed her and took the gun. And the shooting was because his mom "loved" her students more than him. Does not sound like it had anything to do with any supposed marketing towards youth. Wouldn't you have to establish actual causation to win? Not just that it might lead to some other kid killing some other people?
Immaterial to the fact they are being sued foe their marketing
So it is not a wrongful death suit? How can you sue someone for their marketing?
Suing under unfair trade practices for promoting the rifle as a combat weapon intended for killing human beings.
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [patf]
[ In reply to ]
patf wrote:
windywave wrote:
patf wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:
I can't comment if I agree without seeing the marketing. I don't equate it to suing a car maker over a drunk driving accident. I equate it to suing cig companies over youth smoking.
Like the cigs, there was a perfectly legal and rightful usage of cigs by certain people. But, the marketing was deemed to (in someone's opinions) to draw in youth.
If I had to guess, that would maybe be the angle.
But again, I can't say if I agree with the ruling without seeing the evidence.
I will say, I'm pretty disturbed by some of the gun magazines for sale at Tractor Supply checkout counters. Basically almost like "urban sniping 101" and "urban warfare 101" on the cover and articles. Really weird messed up stuff versus what I grew up with, which was seeing buck and boar articles on those kind of magazines.
There IS a perverse subset of owners into the whole "armchair warrior" kind of thing. Almost like they fantasize about it.
I had a cell phone picture of the magazine once, I sent it to a friend, but can't find it right now.
How can they say they marketed the gun to Lanza. His mom bought it not him. And he killed her and took the gun. And the shooting was because his mom "loved" her students more than him. Does not sound like it had anything to do with any supposed marketing towards youth. Wouldn't you have to establish actual causation to win? Not just that it might lead to some other kid killing some other people?
Immaterial to the fact they are being sued foe their marketing
So it is not a wrongful death suit? How can you sue someone for their marketing?
"Specifically, if the defendants did indeed seek to expand the market for their assault weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting, collecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies, then we are aware of nothing in the text or legislative history of PLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the defendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted,” [Conn. Supreme Court Justice Richard] Palmer wrote.
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [Art M.]
[ In reply to ]
Art M. wrote:
Does this means I can sue a car manufacturer if I get hit by a drunk driver? https://www.cnbc.com/...ewtown-shooting.html
No. But you're still free to post stupid questions. But let's put it this way, if an auto manufacturer marketed a vehicle with self-driving capabilities with some slogan like, "Just the car for when you've had a few too many," then I suspect you'd have a case.
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [windywave]
[ In reply to ]
windywave wrote:
This is a really bad precedent to set. Hopefully the plaintiffs lose either at trial or on appeal.Would your opinion change if rather than, "you've just had your man card reissued," one of the marketing slogans was "for when those school kids get on your nerves?" And who do you want drawing that line, a judge or a jury?
I'm perfectly fine with judges making a decision up to a point, as the risk with juries is that they'll take into consideration irrelevant factors despite the jury instructions. And from the little I've seen about this marketing campaign, I think the matter should have stayed on the judge side of that line. But I also believe that in egregious cases, manufacturer's should be responsible for the foreseeable impacts that their marketing may have on how a product is used.
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [AlanShearer]
[ In reply to ]
AlanShearer wrote:
Art M. wrote:
Does this means I can sue a car manufacturer if I get hit by a drunk driver? https://www.cnbc.com/...ewtown-shooting.html
No. But you're still free to post stupid questions. But let's put it this way, if an auto manufacturer marketed a vehicle with self-driving capabilities with some slogan like, "Just the car for when you've had a few too many," then I suspect you'd have a case.
How about we consider a more realistic situation. When are the energy drink companies going to be sued out of existence?
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Re: Court rules gun maker can be sued over shooting [Art M.]
[ In reply to ]
Art M. wrote:
Does this means I can sue a car manufacturer if I get hit by a drunk driver? https://www.cnbc.com/...ewtown-shooting.html
Yes. Assuming the car was designed and engineered kill people.
Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's
Guffaw wrote:
Art M. wrote:
Does this means I can sue a car manufacturer if I get hit by a drunk driver? https://www.cnbc.com/...ewtown-shooting.html
Yes. Assuming the car was designed and engineered kill people.
That's missing the point.
The point isn't the whole "guns don't kill people, people do".
The point is that the gun industry has (in someone's opinion) an advertising style similar to the tobacco industry. We know how that turned out. I think that's where this is going.
The "grab all the guns" crowd and the "they're coming for all our guns" crowd will be at each other. The reality is more like they can still make and sell whatever and no new laws, but you just can't advertise like you're selling some kind of sicko "urban revolutionary" lifestyle to sell your product.