National Remington offer to Sandy Hook

[American123]

This case is often cited as an egregious lawsuit, but in actuality it's more complex than that. That 79 year old woman spent eight days in hospital with 3rd degree burns covering 16% of her body, requiring debridement and skin grafts, causing permanent scarring, and disabling her for two years. McDonalds admitted that their coffee was "not fit for consumption" at the temperatures it was served at, and would cause 3rd degree burns in two to seven seconds if spilled, and that they did not provide any sort of warning about that temperature.

The woman initially offered to settle for $20,000 to cover her medical bills (imagine what that would cost today, yeesh) and McDonalds refused. As a result of that case, McDonalds lowered the temperature of their coffee when served from 180-190 degrees (causing 3rd degree burns in as little as two seconds) to under 160 degrees, which would take around a minute to cause 3rd degree burns, increasing the margin of safety by a long measure.

Their coffee was unsafe to serve, they refused to settle, and got their bubblegum handed to them for it.

Old ladies have terribly thin skin, this is not. surprising. From my perspective the warning is implied in the title "hot coffee." I do understand that the temperature of "hot" does not specify a temperature.

How about the lawsuit against red bull because it did not in fact give someone wings?

 

[ma96782]

No doubt that if McD had settled for the original $20k.......it would have NOT sent a message. And......the same could be said for Remington. Cough, cough....

Common sense is DEAD.

"Let The Bean Counters Rule!"

Aloha, Mark

 

[Rkangel]

Nike is woke. Maybe they should pay each victim $3.7 million for the shoes the shooter wore. Banks are getting more woke. Maybe they should pay $3.7 million to each victim because the shooter lived in a house that had a mortgage. The barber clearly wasn't woke (because anyone who wasn't sleeping wouldn't have thought that haircut looked good) however he should still pay $3.7 million for the visual assault inflicted on the populace. The education system is woke. Maybe they should pay $3.7 million to each victim for letting the shooter onto campus grounds.

And thus is the problem with communism: When the individual is no longer responsible, everyone else is to blame.

 

[ma96782]

BUT, But, but.......Zero was President at the time.


Aloha, Mark

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I just read today that the payout is coming from two companies that insured Remington. The settlements were offered by insurance companies Ironshore and James River. It's only a guess, but there is a good chance that these two companies were helping pay the bills to fight the lawsuit. Once the court ruled against Remington, they came forward with the settlements. Settlement is often the cheaper way out. They could keep up the legal battle, spend who knows how much on lawyers for who knows how long, then still lose in the courtroom. This being a highly emotional issue, a jury could award some sky-high judgement that is way more than $33 million. Way more. It's a business decision.

That sounds like a likely scenario. Problem is it establishes a very troubling precedent, one based entirely on fallacies and tilting at windmills, and one which will turbocharge Biden's preposterous rhetoric and mobilize Giffords and Birthing People Demand Action. Just watch...

 

[bbbass]

Remington Offers 9 Families of Sandy Hook Victims $3.7 Million Each to Settle Lawsuit

Aloha, Mark

RAt bastids, all the way round!!!

 

[nft]

Settlement may not have been Remington's decision. The insurance companies have taken over and it's their call. They will do what is in their best interest and most likely they have determined it is cheaper to settle than continue to defend. So, the 2A industry suffers because of the insurance company's decision.

^^^^^^

It's a business decision. It is problematic for the same reason that paying ransomware attackers is, but it's also not surprising when your goal is to minimize immediate costs. Certainly has nothing to do with right and wrong or with 2A.

 

[DeanfromOregon]

How about the lawsuit against red bull because it did not in fact give someone wings?

Genius. Pure genius.

 

[gmerkt]

Problem is it establishes a very troubling precedent,

From the standpoint of becoming a business model, the precedent has been previously established. Just ask county or municipal officials all over the country. For some time, whenever a dead-beat offender dies in custody, if often results in a lawsuit and in turn, a settlement payout for the much-aggrieved "estate" of the decedent. The shake-down is the result of the business model being the less expensive expedient. Legal counsel wins either way. With the settlement, they get a nice cut. Going to trial, they can milk a case almost indefinitely and run up the chargeable hours.

 

[ma96782]

Now what was that quote from Shakespeare's play.....Henry VI (Part 2)?

Aloha, Mark

PS.....YES, I know that the entire thing was meant to be more of a positive to lawyers. And, Yeah.....it was just one line.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

From the standpoint of becoming a business model, the precedent has been previously established. Just ask county or municipal officials all over the country. For some time, whenever a dead-beat offender dies in custody, if often results in a lawsuit and in turn, a settlement payout for the much-aggrieved "estate" of the decedent. The shake-down is the result of the business model being the less expensive expedient. Legal counsel wins either way. With the settlement, they get a nice cut. Going to trial, they can milk a case almost indefinitely and run up the chargeable hours.

Sure. However, I was referring specifically to a legacy manufacturer of firearms rolling over like this and the chilling effect this action will likely have on other players in the space. Lingchi: Death of a thousand cuts. This settlement is potentially the best thing ever to happen to gun grabbers as it affords them en masse the opportunity to sidestep the Constitution entirely (something they have demonstrated they desperately want to do) and kill our sport through attrition. Were I in the gunmaking business I'd be very nervous right about now.

 

[gmerkt]

I was referring specifically to a legacy manufacturer of firearms rolling over like this

Yes, I get that. But I don't think the Remington legacy shell company can be expected to chose a course of action that is necessarily favorable to gun rights. It's in bankruptcy liquidation, it's run by receivers whose only purpose is to close it out. And a big part of that is resolving the many legal claims against what funds remain. This is why they will take whatever expedient method of resolution they can get. It's not Remington, per se, "rolling over," it's the receivers and insurance companies.

The law that was used to sue Remington was a CT state law relating to unfair trade practices. The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is not in play in this case.

Were I in the gunmaking business I'd be very nervous right about now.

I think taken to the extreme, individual private sellers of firearms should also take notice. Who knows where this may lead to?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Yes, I get that. But I don't think the Remington legacy shell company can be expected to chose a course of action that is necessarily favorable to gun rights. It's in bankruptcy liquidation, it's run by receivers whose only purpose is to close it out. And a big part of that is resolving the many legal claims against what funds remain. This is why they will take whatever expedient method of resolution they can get. It's not Remington, per se, "rolling over," it's the receivers and insurance companies.

The law that was used to sue Remington was a CT state law relating to unfair trade practices. The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is not in play in this case.


I think taken to the extreme, individual private sellers of firearms should also take notice. Who knows where this may lead to?

I'm familiar with the circuitous legal route of the case and the plaintiffs' complaint. As for private sales, you could have a point. But remember that little incel freak did not purchase the murder weapon, rather stole it from his mother after he popped her in her own bed (with a .22 bolt no less). My first thought after the full breadth of the event had come to light was "if only one of those six adults had been armed in that school on that day..."

Next time a stoned driver takes out a family of four on a Sunday drive, I'm going to earn my law degree and sue the estate of Bob Marley on their behalf...

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

You should (not while your eating!) look into that a bit more. Not saying I disagree with your basic point, but that really isn't the best example that you think it is

Why is it not the best example? It is perfectly analogous to a discussion regarding people filing lawsuits that have no merit. Remington didn't cause that little incel freak to murder his mother (with a Savage .22 bolt, NOT a Remington), steal her Bushmaster MSR and murder all those innocent children and six unarmed adults any more than McDonald's caused the dumb lady to put hot coffee BETWEEN HER LEGS, causing 3rd-degree burns on her lady bits. These are frivolous lawsuits benefitting mostly the attorneys. I get it -- it's their job. It's also why there are so many lawyer jokes. But the nexus, the commonality is: blame-shifting and following the money. We have politicians who also try to sue gun makers for the acts of violent creeps in their cities (likely due to said mayors' very own failed policies)instead of holding accountable the perpetrators of these depraved acts. For all the sympathy and empathy we should rightly have for the Sandy Hook families, this is no different. And trying to disarm ME will not bring their precious children back, nor will it prevent the next heinous act of violence perpetrated by a sick individual in our broken society.

The spokesperson for the families disingenuously claims they filed suit "to prevent further mass shootings." Any rational, objective person with a modicum of intelligence can see right through that tedium and recognize they wanted to punish the party that created the tool that was used to murder their children, but one component of a larger anti-gun, anti-2A, anti-personal responsibility strategy. FFS you've even got the pathetic mayor of Chicago blaming her town's staggering homicide rate NOT ON THE KILLERS OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, but on her neighboring state of Indiana. If only Indiana had stronger gun control laws, al these murders in Chicago would not be happening... then tell us, Ms. neatly-coiffed mayor, why doesn't Indiana have all the homicide like you do? Must be something other than the guns. For the life of me, I can't figure out what the heck it could be... Hmh.

In the end, our sport is under attack by people hell-bent on disarming us. They are the true believers. And we need to push back, every time, all the time. With all due respect and sympathy to these grieving families, we cannot afford to allow them to effectively nullify our constitutional rights by filing frivolous lawsuits as an alternative to the very difficult task of overturning the 2A, which they would do in a heartbeat if they could.

LingChi: The death of a thousand cuts.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

It really is, if you order a hot coffee, I expect it to burn me if I drink it before it cools down.

Imagine that, coffee being hot. Burning your private parts if you put it between your legs. But everybody knows Ronald McDonald came trundling along with his big clown shoes and spilled that hot coffee all over that poor woman.