Parsons v Colt Manufacturing

[TurtleDude]

State Court Docket Watch: Parsons v. Colt’s Manufacturing Company | The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

the Nevada CT bent over backwards for the plaintiffs and still dismissed this suit arising from Paddock's mass shooting at Vegas a few years ago

 

[Rich2018]

State Court Docket Watch: Parsons v. Colt’s Manufacturing Company | The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

the Nevada CT bent over backwards for the plaintiffs and still dismissed this suit arising from Paddock's mass shooting at Vegas a few years ago

"In December 2021, a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court determined in Parsons v. Colt’s Manufacturing Company that a Nevada statute granted gun manufacturers immunity from certain wrongful death or negligence claims asserted under state law, even if the plaintiffs plausibly allege the manufacturers knowingly sold firearms that violated state and federal machinegun laws."

What other industry has such immunity ?

 

[Rucker61]

"In December 2021, a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court determined in Parsons v. Colt’s Manufacturing Company that a Nevada statute granted gun manufacturers immunity from certain wrongful death or negligence claims asserted under state law, even if the plaintiffs plausibly allege the manufacturers knowingly sold firearms that violated state and federal machinegun laws."

What other industry has such immunity ?

De facto or de jure?

 

[Lutherf]

The people of Oklahoma City should have sued U-Haul for providing McVeigh with a vehicle that could be packed with enough ANFO to level a city block. After all, somebody with deep pockets needs to be liable of there's no sense in filing a case!

 

[Linuxcooldude]

What other industry has such immunity ?

All internet communication hosting platforms. Twitter, Facebook ect. Section 230, that third parties posting on said platforms, such hosting platforms are not liable for what is posted.

The ones the liberal radicals love so much for big tech censoring conservatives?

 

[Crovax]

"In December 2021, a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court determined in Parsons v. Colt’s Manufacturing Company that a Nevada statute granted gun manufacturers immunity from certain wrongful death or negligence claims asserted under state law, even if the plaintiffs plausibly allege the manufacturers knowingly sold firearms that violated state and federal machinegun laws."

What other industry has such immunity ?

All of them have that immunity, the problem is that gun-banners are rabid they would stop at nothing to get rid of guns that it must be codified into law.

When is the last time you heard about Louisville slugger getting sued because someone got beat with a bat?

 

[TurtleDude]

"In December 2021, a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court determined in Parsons v. Colt’s Manufacturing Company that a Nevada statute granted gun manufacturers immunity from certain wrongful death or negligence claims asserted under state law, even if the plaintiffs plausibly allege the manufacturers knowingly sold firearms that violated state and federal machinegun laws."

What other industry has such immunity ?

what other industry is ever sued by leftwing scum because a criminal misuses a lawfully sold product?

 

[Terryj]

"In December 2021, a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court determined in Parsons v. Colt’s Manufacturing Company that a Nevada statute granted gun manufacturers immunity from certain wrongful death or negligence claims asserted under state law, even if the plaintiffs plausibly allege the manufacturers knowingly sold firearms that violated state and federal machinegun laws."

What other industry has such immunity ?

Most companies that manufacture goods are immune from the illegal use of their product. Such as automobile manufactures, cutlery manufactures, aircraft manufactures and even pencil manufactures. It isn't the manufactures fault on how their product is used and it is impossible to manufacture products that can not be use illegally. This case would set a dangerous precedent if the plaintiffs had won this, it would set a stage in this country that could possibility cripple any manufacturing company IF their product was used illegally to cause death.

 

[Rich2018]

De facto or de jure?

De jure.

 

[Rich2018]

All internet communication hosting platforms. Twitter, Facebook ect. Section 230, that third parties posting on said platforms, such hosting platforms are not liable for what is posted.

The ones the liberal radicals love so much for big tech censoring conservatives?

Can Facebook show images of child porn with impunity ?

 

[Rich2018]

All of them have that immunity, the problem is that gun-banners are rabid they would stop at nothing to get rid of guns that it must be codified into law.

When is the last time you heard about Louisville slugger getting sued because someone got beat with a bat?

Baseball bats are designed to play baseball with, not to kill people.

 

[Rich2018]

Most companies that manufacture goods are immune from the illegal use of their product. Such as automobile manufactures, cutlery manufactures, aircraft manufactures and even pencil manufactures. It isn't the manufactures fault on how their product is used and it is impossible to manufacture products that can not be use illegally. This case would set a dangerous precedent if the plaintiffs had won this, it would set a stage in this country that could possibility cripple any manufacturing company IF their product was used illegally to cause death.

But those companies are making products that are not designed to kill with.

 

[RF667799]

Baseball bats are designed to play baseball with, not to kill people.

A wooden baseball bat is a club, hardly removed from the original design. A metal baseball bat is a club with improved lethality.

 

[BlueTex]

The people of Oklahoma City should have sued U-Haul for providing McVeigh with a vehicle that could be packed with enough ANFO to level a city block. After all, somebody with deep pockets needs to be liable of there's no sense in filing a case!

What about suing the coop that sold the fertilizer?

 

[Rich2018]

what other industry is ever sued by leftwing scum because a criminal misuses a lawfully sold product?

Or sued by right wing scum ?

 

[Rucker61]

Q

De jure.

The de facto protection for other industries is that no one is trying to (a) sue them out of business (b) ban and confiscate all of their product, except for a few exemptions note previously.

 

[Lutherf]

What about suing the coop that sold the fertilizer?

Sue 'em all and let God sort 'em out!!!

 

[BlueTex]

Sue 'em all and let God sort 'em out!!!

You do realize their WERE lawsuits against the coop that sold the fertilizer... correct?

 

[Lutherf]

You do realize their WERE lawsuits against the coop that sold the fertilizer... correct?

I really don't remember who got sued.

 

[Rich2018]

The de facto protection for other industries is that no one is trying to (a) sue them out of business (b) ban and confiscate all of their product, except for a few exemptions note previously.

Er...the tobacco industry ?

 

[Rucker61]

Er...the tobacco industry ?

They weren't sued for making cigarettes. They were sued for lying about cigarettes.

Are they being sued now? Is there a legal existential threat?

 

[Chillfolks]

You do realize their WERE lawsuits against the coop that sold the fertilizer... correct?

Didn’t they get tossed because selling fertilizer for farm use the having someone misuse it to create a bomb isn’t the producers fault. Like how if you sell a gun to someone and it gets stolen the used in a crime it’s not Colts fault.

 

[Rich2018]

They weren't sued for making cigarettes. They were sued for lying about cigarettes.

Are they being sued now? Is there a legal existential threat?

No, the tobacco companies lied that cigarettes didn't cause cancer, in their defense:

The First Lawsuits Against Cigarette Manufacturers​

When the first reports emerged linking cigarettes to cancer emerged in the 1950s, plaintiffs began suing cigarette manufacturers. Plaintiffs in these early cases -- usually smokers with lung cancer -- typically employed several legal theories in their lawsuits:

• negligent manufacture - the tobacco companies failed to act with reasonable care in making and marketing cigarettes
• product liability - the tobacco companies made and marketed a product that was unfit to use
• negligent advertising - the tobacco companies failed to warn consumers of the risks of smoking cigarettes
• fraud
• violation of state consumer protection statutes (most of which prohibit unfair and deceptive business practices).

Tobacco manufacturers responded in full force, fighting each lawsuit and refusing to settle out of court. They relied on several defense strategies, arguing that:

• Tobacco was not harmful to smokers.
• Smokers' cancer was caused by other factors.
• Smokers assumed the risk of cancer when they decided to smoke.

Tobacco and Cigarette Litigation: History & Trends

Learn about the history of Tobacco lawsuits, and read our update covering recent liability trends of cigarette/e-cigarette manufacturers in 2022.

www.nolo.com

 

[TurtleDude]

You do realize their WERE lawsuits against the coop that sold the fertilizer... correct?

they were hit with 12(b)(6) dismissals. if courts actually imposed severe penalties against those who file frivolous lawsuits, this crap would stop

 

[Rich2018]

they were hit with 12(b)(6) dismissals. if courts actually imposed severe penalties against those who file frivolous lawsuits, this crap would stop

The British system is the best. The loser, in a civil lawsuit, pays the court costs and all the costs that the winner incurred. Losing a lawsuit has been known to cost people their houses.
Result: none of the trivial or malicious lawsuits you get in the USA.