Smith & Wesson Sued Over Link To July 4 Parade Mass Shooting

[Patriotguy]

Premise rejected, these are not the only criteria that establish liability.

did it go off by itself?

 

[rahl]

Apparently, you don't. I'm done playing your silly games for today.

its not my fault you made a hilariously incorrect statement.

the facts remain. Remington did not settle. The insurance company did.

 

[Patriotguy]

... Representatives for Smith & Wesson, based in Springfield, Massachusetts, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Wednesday. ...

What is this shit company doin' in MA?

They should be based in some shithole red state...

Because you don't get to decide!

 

[Patriotguy]

So when you said you don’t see the case for liability, what you meant was you don’t see the case for liability under a set of laws you wish existed instead of the ones that do exist.

Do you see why that might be confusing to other people?

If you don't like guns don't buy one!

 

[Donatello]

its not my fault you made a hilariously incorrect statement.

the facts remain. Remington did not settle. The insurance company did.

Wow. You seem to need to be right. Give yourself a sticker and celebrate your great word game victory.

 

[JMB802]

Wow. You seem to need to be right. Give yourself a sticker and celebrate your great word game victory.

It's the "so sad, too bad, 2A" team MO.

Their mission is to crap up every gun thread with a bunch of nonsense, deflections, and thinly veiled personal insults to make it difficult for anyone else to discuss the thread topic.

 

[SuperDS77]

Again: it worked EXACTLY as it was designed.
It killed lots of people quickly and easily.

Yes it did not malfunction, therefore the manufacturer should have NO liability. NONE. To say otherwise is just emotional horse puckey.

Hence...it is by nature "unsafe", and should not be marketed to the general population.

Not "unsafe" whatsoever. Used properly and legally there is no issue.

You really shouldn't even have to explain this GLARING REALITY to people, people who then just FLATLY IGNORE it anyway LOL. Truly bizarre and disturbing, this creepy gun obsession in the USA. Completely inhuman. Its truly....EWWWWWW.

One shouldn't have to explain human nature constantly to liberals like yourself who are always blamijng the TOOL, not the person. Get a grip!

 

[Fledermaus]

I think going after the product manufacturer in these cases is a good idea. If it's an unsafe product, they can address it, like any other product.

It is a safe product when used properly and legally.

 

[Fledermaus]

This is interesting.

They are suing on the same grounds as the Sandy Hook families used to sue another weapon manufacturer.

I hope the plaintiffs win and the defendants face huge fines.

Smith & Wesson sued over link to July 4 parade mass shooting

The gun-maker Smith & Wesson illegally targeted young men at risk of violence with ads for firearms — including the 22-year-old gunman accused of opening fire on an Independence Day parade in suburban Chicago and killing seven people, according to several lawsuits filed Wednesday in Illinois...

www.aol.com

The gun got up on it's own and shot people? That IS breaking news.

 

[JMB802]

It is a safe product when used properly and legally.

So, when a firearm/gun/whatever is used properly, it propels a projectile, right?

 

[dockside]

its not my fault you made a hilariously incorrect statement.

the facts remain. Remington did not settle. The insurance company did.

The insurance company paid and settled, but they did it on behalf of Remington. That's the way insurance works. If as you say, Remington did not settle, they could still be sued. The settlement agreement does not name the insurance company as defendant, it names Remington. The settlement agreement says the plaintiff accepts a certain amount of money in full settlement against the defendant, Remington. The insurance company handles the litigation and subsequent settlement. Again, on behalf of Remington. I settled countless injury lawsuits when I practiced law. I know what I'm talking about. You, quite apparently, do not.

 

[dockside]

It is illegal for people with mental illness to own guns already. There is a process for buying a gun that involves approval by ATF. Looks like government isn't doing a very good job of thatGood mental illness don't accept the law. It is illegal to run over someone willfully with car. Yet it happens.

Good luck with keeping the mentally ill from owning guns. All it will do is keep mentally ill from getting help. And, not all people mowing down lots of people with a semi-automatic are mentally ill. There is no purpose, none, in owning a semi-automatic other than to kill. Other types of guns are more useful in hunting animals, target shooting, defending others or yourself.

 

[Cope]

The insurance company paid and settled, but they did it on behalf of Remington. That's the way insurance works. If as you say, Remington did not settle, they could still be sued. The settlement agreement does not name the insurance company as defendant, it names Remington. The settlement agreement says the plaintiff accepts a certain amount of money in full settlement against the defendant, Remington. The insurance company handles the litigation and subsequent settlement. Again, on behalf of Remington. I settled countless injury lawsuits when I practiced law. I know what I'm talking about. You, quite apparently, do not.

Did the monies paid out come from Remington or the insurer?

 

[JMB802]

Did the monies paid out come from Remington or the insurer?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Show us all the portion of the linked court settlement document that states that Remington's insurance company settled.

Do we need to? Remington went out of business in 2020. The settlement was reached in 2022. How can a company that no longer exists settle a lawsuit? Seems pretty obvious it was the company's successors in interest who settled on their behalf -- the insurers who would have paid anyway had Remington still existed.

 

[rahl]

Wow. You seem to need to be right. Give yourself a sticker and celebrate your great word game victory.

huh? It's literally what happened in that case lol

 

[Metric Mouse]

... Representatives for Smith & Wesson, based in Springfield, Massachusetts, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Wednesday. ...

What is this shit company doin' in MA?

They should be based in some shithole red state...

Liberal states don't mind having murderous companies in their state, as long as they're profitable. They were counting on gun violence not harming white kids.

 

[rahl]

The insurance company paid and settled, but they did it on behalf of Remington. That's the way insurance works.

Correct. The insurance company settled, not remington. That's what I said.

If as you say, Remington did not settle, they could still be sued. The settlement agreement does not name the insurance company as defendant, it names Remington. The settlement agreement says the plaintiff accepts a certain amount of money in full settlement against the defendant, Remington. The insurance company handles the litigation and subsequent settlement. Again, on behalf of Remington. I settled countless injury lawsuits when I practiced law. I know what I'm talking about. You, quite apparently, do not.

I'm an insurance adjuster, I know exactly what I'm talking about. It's why I corrected him, as well as corrected you.

 

[Cope]

I don't get the hilarity?
Who paid the money?

 

[dockside]

Did the monies paid out come from Remington or the insurer?

Who knows and who cares? It was Remington that agreed to settle and the plaintiffs who agreed to end their lawsuit and not bring another one against Remington. If you were in a car accident and caused injury to another person and that person sued you, you would turn it over to your auto insurance company and maybe your umbrella insurance co if you had one. They would appoint a lawyer on your behalf and that lawyer would negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff's lawyer. If you and your lawyer agreed with the plaintiff's lawyer, a settlement agreement would be drafted and signed by the plaintiff upon receiving a check. The settlement agreement would not even name the insurance company. Your insurance company was not being sued. You, the defendant, were being sued and settled. The insurance company paid the plaintiff on your behalf, but it is your name on the settlement agreement.

The court document posted shows the names of the defendants. The insurance company is not named as a defendant. The lawyers for the parties (or perhaps just one party) are requesting a conference with the judge. They are doing this as part of their representation of the plaintiffs and defendants. How much plainer can I make this for you to understand?

 

[JMB802]

Do we need to? Remington went out of business in 2020. The settlement was reached in 2022. How can a company that no longer exists settle a lawsuit? Seems pretty obvious it was the company's successors in interest who settled on their behalf -- the insurers who would have paid anyway had Remington still existed.

Firearms and ammunition are still manufactured and sold using the Remington name. I consider that still being in business. YMMV.

Remington | Shop Iconic American Made Ammunition

For more than 200 years, Remington firearms have been forged from the untamed spirit that will always define the American spirit — Revolutionizing an industry. Building a nation. This is Remington Country.

www.remington.com

 

[dobieg]

... Representatives for Smith & Wesson, based in Springfield, Massachusetts, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Wednesday. ...

What is this shit company doin' in MA?

They should be based in some shithole red state...

Smith & Wesson makes wonderful guns and I enjoy the ones I own.

 

[dobieg]

My parades are in PA and CA.

Good to see that the filthy gun maker actually is moving to a shithole red state...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/massachusetts/articles/2021-09-30/gunmaker-smith-wesson-moving-to-tennessee-adding-750-jobs

The only thing filthy are nickel head liberal gun grabbers.

 

[Cope]

Who knows and who cares? It was Remington that agreed to settle and the plaintiffs who agreed to end their lawsuit and not bring another one against Remington. If you were in a car accident and caused injury to another person and that person sued you, you would turn it over to your auto insurance company and maybe your umbrella insurance co if you had one. They would appoint a lawyer on your behalf and that lawyer would negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff's lawyer. If you and your lawyer agreed with the plaintiff's lawyer, a settlement agreement would be drafted and signed by the plaintiff upon receiving a check. The settlement agreement would not even name the insurance company. Your insurance company was not being sued. You, the defendant, were being sued and settled. The insurance company paid the plaintiff on your behalf, but it is your name on the settlement agreement.

The court document posted shows the names of the defendants. The insurance company is not named as a defendant. The lawyers for the parties (or perhaps just one party) are requesting a conference with the judge. They are doing this as part of their representation of the plaintiffs and defendants. How much plainer can I make this for you to understand?

I am trying to understand since Remington filed for bankruptcy, what they paid.

If it was just the insurance money they paid over the years and the insurer came out of pocket to pay the settlement?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Firearms and ammunition are still manufactured and sold using the Remington name. I consider that still being in business. YMMV.

Remington | Shop Iconic American Made Ammunition

For more than 200 years, Remington firearms have been forged from the untamed spirit that will always define the American spirit — Revolutionizing an industry. Building a nation. This is Remington Country.

www.remington.com

The name was purchased by Crotalus Holdings which revived the brand. It is not the same company.

See here:

But the Bushmaster name lives on. The trademark was snatched up by another firearms manufacturer, Crotalus Holdings of Carson City, Nev., in a bankruptcy sale.