Please don’t interject documentation.A lot of the media around that case was pushed by large corporations making it seem like a frivolous lawsuit. Turns out there was a bit more to that case.
Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case - Public Citizen
In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and...www.citizen.org
Remington Arms Settles with Sandy Hook Victims
- Thread starter LWC55
- Start date
Thank you for sharing this. I reviewed this info when it occurred as I was stunned and appreciate facts over the usual internet b.s. Thank you for interjecting documentation. A necessity in today's Internet weaved world of conclusions as 406DN mentioned earlier and pre-conceived decisions already created by the public, without any facts.A lot of the media around that case was pushed by large corporations making it seem like a frivolous lawsuit. Turns out there was a bit more to that case.
Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case - Public Citizen
In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and...www.citizen.org
One of the key aspects that stuck -
This shows how silly jurors have become... even further. Thankfully, the Judge was blown away when a jury opted to plaid mode hyper-speed! Haha! Top it off: It turned to a confidential settlement between McDonalds and the lady who flipped her hot coffee she had between her legs onto her sweatpants.
700 complaints over "too hot coffee" from McDonalds - WORLDWIDE. Hmmm... 700 complaints of hot coffee... Rocket Science anyone? 38,000 McDonalds. How many coffee's served each day?... 700 complaints. Let's add to this:
McDonalds sells over 500 million cups of coffee annually. Rocket Science, anyone?
0.0000014% of it's coffee cups sold received complaints their coffee was too hot. Take this even further: That was 700 complaints of hot coffee <period>! Not just in one year that the 0.0000014% was calculated.
But hey, McDonalds settled a few of those complaints so they must be at fault, correct? Not a chance in hell. Settlements are to minimize expense for legal fights and less exposure to ridiculous Jury awards! <Insert PRIME EXAMPLE, Hot coffee, McDonalds>
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,266
Everybody can wring their hands about this, but the insurance company has very good lawyers and risk analysts. They made a decision that they decided was in their best interest. It is their risk to decide, no-one else's.
Will it lead to more law suits?... likely. It is a fairly predictable path concerning the gun issue. The NRA has essentially told gun control groups to pound sand whenever any legislative efforts are broached. That works, until it doesn't. The public image of the NRA with their current leadership is tarnished to say the least.
Will it lead to more law suits?... likely. It is a fairly predictable path concerning the gun issue. The NRA has essentially told gun control groups to pound sand whenever any legislative efforts are broached. That works, until it doesn't. The public image of the NRA with their current leadership is tarnished to say the least.
They decided what was in the best interest of the their insurance company not Firearm manufacturers.
Given that they paid out on this raises some serious doubt on how good they are. This should’ve been a very straight Forward case.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
“This landmark, historic victory sends a forceful and compelling message to manufacturers, and to the insurance and banking industries that support them,” Hockley said. “This is a high-risk market, it is not profitable and you will be held accountable.”
The most immediate but broad consequence of the settlement is that legal claims based on consumer protection statutes can now potentially survive the PLCAA barrier, Feldman said. Many states and jurisdictions across the U.S. have similar consumer protection laws on the books, she noted, so the settlement potentially creates a template for holding gun manufacturers accountable.
One of the biggest pending cases against gun manufacturers, she said, is the government of Mexico’s lawsuit, filed last year in federal court in Massachusetts, against Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. and other gun manufacturers for feeding a market in criminal use of guns in Mexico.
Sandy Hook $73-million settlement with Remington is not just about money
The families of nine Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims sued Remington, a case that focused on the marketing of the Bushmaster rifle.
“One of the biggest pending cases against gun manufacturers, she said, is the government of Mexico’s lawsuit, filed last year in federal court in Massachusetts, against Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. and other gun manufacturers for feeding a market in criminal use of guns in Mexico.”
I’m gonna take a while guess and say that one is gonna go absolutely nowhere considering some of the players that were involved in getting those guns to Mexico
I’m gonna take a while guess and say that one is gonna go absolutely nowhere considering some of the players that were involved in getting those guns to Mexico
So the findings in the McDonald's case are fair and true because of the ruling?
Should my new Nike's come with a warning that if I run too fast or jump too high, I could cross an invisible threshold which could lead to serious injury?
There's no end to this type of thinking
Should my new Nike's come with a warning that if I run too fast or jump too high, I could cross an invisible threshold which could lead to serious injury?
There's no end to this type of thinking
brocksw
Well-known member
Only if you're using those Nikes to corner hop...
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,266
Please.... Remington did not want that risk, so they insured against it. So, yes it becomes the insurance company that decides how to procede with a claim or suit.
It might very well play out that no insurance company will insure gun makers for this type of liability. Then it will be the Firearm manufacturers who will get to decide how to handle these sort of cases.
westbranch
Well-known member
Life isn't fair. But based on the system we have, the case would be appear to be "true":
Sixth Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
The Constitution Annotated provides a legal analysis and interpretation of the United States Constitution based on a comprehensive review of Supreme Court case law.
There are some cases on false advertising related to shoes, so could be something for you to look into. Not sure what kind of retainer the attorney will want.
When it comes to large corporations and politicians pushing for tort reform it makes me hesitant to support something like that. Having these cases go through the lawsuits/juries/settlements isn't perfect but its better than the alternative. I put my trust in large corporations to do the right thing at the same level of my trust in the government to do the right thing, which is zero.
No thanks. Instead, I'm just going to complain to whoever will commiserate about how common sense, personal responsibility, and personal accountability are being thrown aside, and how we're creating a miserable world for future generations. But everyone will be as safe and lawyer'd up as possible
It makes a lot of sense that you can sue Remington. For the same reason my wife and I can sue Moderna and her employer for her Guillan Barre that’s cost us some money, with more to spend yet (thank god for insurance)… oh wait, it doesn’t work that way does it? I wonder why that is?
Maybe the ‘gun lobby’ really isn’t that powerful, or they’d have bought their way into the same situation as oil and pharma and corporate ag have managed to do. Compared to other interests in our country they seem fairly fickle.
Maybe the ‘gun lobby’ really isn’t that powerful, or they’d have bought their way into the same situation as oil and pharma and corporate ag have managed to do. Compared to other interests in our country they seem fairly fickle.
Last edited:
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
I literally just bought a cup of McDonald’s coffee a couple minutes before reading this.
Interestingly enough, this case has consciously and subconsciously changed my behavior when dealing with coffee in paper or styrofoam cups. Coffee doesn’t ever get held between my legs. Seems like a no brainer and I bet I would have figured it out on my own eventually after I spilled some on my lap.
Regardless of the justice or injustice of awards like these, they can serve as a reminder for individuals to avoid potentially harmful behavior before they experience consequences first hand.
I wonder if in 20 years we will still be arguing over gun rights and gun restrictions as our knee jerk response to tragedies involving guns and mentally unstable individuals or whether we will have made significant enough investment in the mental health of Americans that we see positive changes and fewer deaths?
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,266
They cut their losses at 73 million. That took a larger award off the table. Their assessment was that a larger amount was more likely than a smaller amount, if they did not settle the suit. Not unlike Prince Andrew deciding paying a settlement was preferable to having all of the laundry hauled out for public view.
If the case went to trial, it is a Pandora's box. Who knows what might become public knowledge about the inner workings of firearm marketing? They decided keeping the lid closed was smarter than opening it.
Maybe you could consult them concerning insuring firearm manufacturing.
I believe the rigged setup against Remington in this case (need a fall guy? go after the big $):
The judge denied the defendant's discovery request of the shooters mental medical records. You know... the guy who took / stole the lawfully purchased firearm and used it, in a mentally deranged manner murder innocent people. I get it... it was a black rifle advertised and he thought "hey, that's made for my purpose..." Thus, Remington became the focal point of emotional humans. Emotional humans bring empathy to the forefront. Everyone empathizes with the families (least I would hope so) however, that should not enable free reign to take it out on whomever they choose and those of us who deeply empathize with their loss must support them otherwise - we don't anguish with their loss? Bull shit.
But hey, it's a black evil gun. Damn thee firearm manufacturer who built such! Disregard the shooter's mental medical history - that's not relevant.
The judge denied the defendant's discovery request of the shooters mental medical records. You know... the guy who took / stole the lawfully purchased firearm and used it, in a mentally deranged manner murder innocent people. I get it... it was a black rifle advertised and he thought "hey, that's made for my purpose..." Thus, Remington became the focal point of emotional humans. Emotional humans bring empathy to the forefront. Everyone empathizes with the families (least I would hope so) however, that should not enable free reign to take it out on whomever they choose and those of us who deeply empathize with their loss must support them otherwise - we don't anguish with their loss? Bull shit.
But hey, it's a black evil gun. Damn thee firearm manufacturer who built such! Disregard the shooter's mental medical history - that's not relevant.
They didn’t cut their losses, I don’t know what you don’t understand. This has all been tried before and they (gun manufacturers) were found they can’t be held liable for how someone uses the product. It could’ve paid out zero dollars and instead pay out 75 million. Again they didn’t cut their losses. They found a way to lose
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
I want to make it clear that I DO NOT BLAME REMINGTON for the tragedy of Sandy Hook, but I am hardly surprised that this happened. Because this is the chit that happens when we don't adequately police ourselves, and this is a cost of many of the people that make up "gun culture" believing that freedom doesn't come with responsibility.
I mean, just look at the direction that gun culture has went over the last 5 years. As late as 2014, even the NRA was saying that widespread open carry would in the end, be bad optics. Consider this quote from a NRA staffer in 2014 concerning open carry in Texas:
"Let’s not mince words, not only is it rare, it’s downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one’s cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open- minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.
In summary, NRA certainly does not support bans on personalized guns or on carrying firearms in public, including in restaurants. We think people are intelligent enough to resolve these issues in a reasonable way for themselves. But when people act without thinking, or without consideration for others – especially when it comes to firearms – they set the stage for further restrictions on our rights."
Wow. What a well balanced and thought out statement. I doubt anyone here is delusional enough to think that the NRA would come out and say that today. Instead you have NRA's prettiest talking heads on YouTube, scaring their demographic into believing everyone that doesn't look or vote like them is coming to get them.
Between Columbine in 1999 and the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, the las Vegas shooting and Virginia Tech shooting in 2017 etc, I don't know of a single instance of the NRA or any other 2a group coming forward and recommending real solutions to a problem we all know exists. Specifically that the weapons used in these type of mass shootings are overwhelmingly legally obtained by the shooter OR (much less often) are the result of legally purchased firearms ending up in the hands of people that shouldn't have them. At best, gun owners want to scream about mental health being the root cause without acknowledging that the firearms industry and federal/state regulatory boards make up a system that allows weapons into the hands of the mentally unwell.
Ignoring that there is a real issue here among gun owners is as stupid and myopic as the never ending amount of people commenting that Remington being sued in connection with the murder of 20 CHILDREN is somehow equivalent to suing a car manufacturer if a drunk driver kills you or your own. If that's really the best you can all do, be ready for a hell of a lot more of these settlements. Because all you are doing is making limp dick excuses into a echo chamber of limp dick excuses and leaving the real action like these settlements and the carving away of 2A rights to people who, unlike us, have 0 real world exposure to firearms.
As for me, I'm goddamned embarrassed as a gun owner to be associated with Wanna-Be, Beta-Masquerading-As-Alpha Male, living in fear types that the ad campaigns referenced earlier really attract, and that many of these shooters clearly are. Its the same Asshats that feel the need to carry "sporting rifles" to anti-mask protests outside of my work at the MN state capital or try to intimidate a 12-year old Montanan boy for engaging in civil discourse around real (or even perceived) injustice. So now I arm myself, not from "the other" but from idiots originating in my own camp. And its those very same idiots that will eventually shoot enough holes in the boat to sink us all.
I mean, just look at the direction that gun culture has went over the last 5 years. As late as 2014, even the NRA was saying that widespread open carry would in the end, be bad optics. Consider this quote from a NRA staffer in 2014 concerning open carry in Texas:
"Let’s not mince words, not only is it rare, it’s downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one’s cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open- minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.
In summary, NRA certainly does not support bans on personalized guns or on carrying firearms in public, including in restaurants. We think people are intelligent enough to resolve these issues in a reasonable way for themselves. But when people act without thinking, or without consideration for others – especially when it comes to firearms – they set the stage for further restrictions on our rights."
Wow. What a well balanced and thought out statement. I doubt anyone here is delusional enough to think that the NRA would come out and say that today. Instead you have NRA's prettiest talking heads on YouTube, scaring their demographic into believing everyone that doesn't look or vote like them is coming to get them.
Between Columbine in 1999 and the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, the las Vegas shooting and Virginia Tech shooting in 2017 etc, I don't know of a single instance of the NRA or any other 2a group coming forward and recommending real solutions to a problem we all know exists. Specifically that the weapons used in these type of mass shootings are overwhelmingly legally obtained by the shooter OR (much less often) are the result of legally purchased firearms ending up in the hands of people that shouldn't have them. At best, gun owners want to scream about mental health being the root cause without acknowledging that the firearms industry and federal/state regulatory boards make up a system that allows weapons into the hands of the mentally unwell.
Ignoring that there is a real issue here among gun owners is as stupid and myopic as the never ending amount of people commenting that Remington being sued in connection with the murder of 20 CHILDREN is somehow equivalent to suing a car manufacturer if a drunk driver kills you or your own. If that's really the best you can all do, be ready for a hell of a lot more of these settlements. Because all you are doing is making limp dick excuses into a echo chamber of limp dick excuses and leaving the real action like these settlements and the carving away of 2A rights to people who, unlike us, have 0 real world exposure to firearms.
As for me, I'm goddamned embarrassed as a gun owner to be associated with Wanna-Be, Beta-Masquerading-As-Alpha Male, living in fear types that the ad campaigns referenced earlier really attract, and that many of these shooters clearly are. Its the same Asshats that feel the need to carry "sporting rifles" to anti-mask protests outside of my work at the MN state capital or try to intimidate a 12-year old Montanan boy for engaging in civil discourse around real (or even perceived) injustice. So now I arm myself, not from "the other" but from idiots originating in my own camp. And its those very same idiots that will eventually shoot enough holes in the boat to sink us all.
Last edited:
What are some things that would’ve stopped Sandy Hook?
About the only thing that I can come up with is her son and should’ve been institutionalized (mental hospital) for his entire life but we both know that never would’ve happened.
Do you think a safekeeping law would’ve prevented it? I doubt it. After Adam smoke checked his mom while she slept he had all the time in the world to get into a safe.
Mandatory gun locks? Same as above.
Everybody has to turn in their AR’s? What good would that do? Let’s not forget Virginia Tech was completed with 2 Glocks.
