Parkland victims sue, calling gun maker and seller complicit in massacre - Sun Sentinel

As someone who owns S&W firearms as well as a bit of the stock, I hope this lawsuit is shut down quickly as a frivolous/unwarranted suit. It sure seems like an absurd claim to me.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) presents serious challenges to this type of suit.

The only successful cases have been where sellers, not manufacturers have been proven to have been negligent in their sale of guns to individuals who later committed crimes.

Since the shooter (I refuse to use his name) at Parkland purchased the gun legally, including passing a NICS (or FL equivalent) check, it's unlikely that approach would succeed.

I also find it despicable that there are two people suing the couple that took the shooter in after his mother died.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

I hope the gun seller and manufacturer are luckier the Bushmaster/Remington. I guess it all depends on the leanings of a court.
Law doesnt seem to always matter, very scary. I site FOPA as an example. It doesnt mean squat in many, too many, states.
Jim

They will get not one nickel...thats my .02 cents

__________________
S&W BG380, S&W 915 9mm

This is just another headline grab by the Anti-Second Amendment crowd to keep the pot simmering. They tried the same thing after Sandyhook and it went nowhere.

But they keep pressing these suits anyway. I guess they figure that if they just keep trying, sooner or later they'll get one in front of a judge who agrees with them strongly enough to ignore the law.

Using this logic how many companies could be sued over a DUI?

__________________
Expert at not being an Expert.

If RJ Reynolds took the hit I guess the field is wide open.
Go after any corporation for the actions of the end user.
Sorry state of affairs. Just my opinion.

A lot. As have private citizens who "over served" their guests. There is well established precedent for suing bars and restaurants.

I don't know if any distillers or breweries have been sued, but it wouldn't surprise me if they have.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

As of right now, that case is sitting in the CT Supreme Court. The suit was dismissed by a lower court and the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. Add to that the bankruptcy filing by Remington, and it's entirely possible that the suit will be dismissed.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

With ONE critical difference. There are laws against serving more alcohol to persons who are clearly inebriated. There is no law against selling a firearm to someone who can legally qualify to purchase it.

This would be a much closer parallel and there is no such precedent that I have ever seen or heard of - and if it had happened you can bet your bottom dollar it would have been BIG news. Just as in the few cases where servers have been held responsible have been big news.

Again on:
Using this logic how many companies could be sued over a DUI?
Would the out come have been different if the liquor was 75 proof instead of 80?
Could you sue the car manufacturer and the dealer who sold the car?
Car had gas, oil, a battery in it, and tires on it do they share any responsibility?
There will always be someone and a lawyer ready to push the envelope.

__________________
Expert at not being an Expert.

I wonder if anyone told them about the folks who sued the outfit that sold ammo to the Colorado theater shooter. When the dust settled they owed the ammo company over $200K for legal fees.

So what? No big surprise here. They've made their headlines for this month, got themselves all over the media again. The network "legal experts" will get some air time expounding on it. The "gun experts", both pro and con, will debate each other again on the split screen.

It's the same ol' dog and pony show we've seen before.

Frankly, the only thing surprises me is that it took them this long to file suit.

Why don't we just pass "The Feel Good, Stop Shooting Kids" law. It would make schools gun-free and outlaw shooting innocent kids in the schools. All we need is one more law to solve it. Right?

__________________
PTLAPTA!

That’s entirely different, and was well-deserved. If the paper trail shows that you’ve known for decades that your product is dangerous, based on your own internal research, but your marketing tells the public otherwise, that’s lethal deception.

None of that applies here. No gun manufacturer advertised their product as harmless, less lethal, and no threat to your kids. Guns are legal, and the shooter’s was, just as it is. Holding the manufacturer responsible would require very different reasoning than the tobacco lawsuits.

suing a gunmaker because someone misused a gun they made is akin to suing the bakery because someone threw a pie in your face.

To be honest...

They let him keep the guns, but wanted them in a safe. He got the safe, and handed them what he said was the only key. Surprise, it's not.

Now, allowing him to have guns in their house, but only on the precondition that he not have access, tells me that they didn't trust him to have access to lethal force.

If they didn't trust him to have access to lethal force:

(1) Why did they allow him to have guns in their house at all?
(2) Why did they do such a piss-poor job of securing that lethal force?

Are they legally responsible? Dunno. That's one for the courts. Do I personally hold them blameless? That's tougher. There was no way for them to prevent him from acquiring firearms, but they did consent and then did a miserable job securing the guns from someone they clearly didn't trust to have unfettered access to them.

Actually I thought about suing the companies that makes forks and spoons, because I am about 15 # over weight.

Surely it's a safe bet that I could win a couple of million bucks, and by the time the lawyers took their cut, and I would possibly have enough left to buy me another K frame.

Have a blessed day,

Leon

Anyone can sue/be sued for anything, regardless of the laws. Winning is a different matter. Unfortunately, the defendant always loses, whether the case has merit or not.
* The plaintiff has full control over the time and money spent on a case, and losing has no consequences.
* The defendant's time and money is also under the control of the plaintiff, and has big consequences for losing.

This is why there needs to be tort reform.

Edited to add: has there ever been any consequences for filing a suit in violation of PLCAA?

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

Yeah well, I am sure it is like everyone told me that they are suing for "the principle" not the money, so maybe the plaintiffs will not mind losing.

I am wondering when the manufacturers of cell phones will get sued due to texting while driving. Not positive but I believe more young people are killed due to texting while driving.

Well, I disagree. Loosing does have consequences for , not the plaintiff but his lawyer as they foot the bills in the hopes of winning. That fact serves as a severe limiting factor-lawyers are not going ot put up a lot of heir own money on a flyer of a case. When we put up our hard earned money funding case expenses, we feel pretty darn sure we are going ot win or at least settle for enough to get our money back. Defendants know that and WILL screw with the plaintiff lawyer making him spend money until he goes broke. I've seen it happen. As far as frivolous law suits, the only time they are frivolous and people scream about them is when the plaintiff hits a big lick because a JURY of persons makes the call. I don't file frivolous suits-I file suits that I can win so I can make money. If I file frivolous baseless suits, all I do is waste my time and my money-not a good business model.
By the way, please set forth specifically what you mean by "tort reform". If you mean looser pays, I am ALL for that. Problem is that the defendants don't want that. As far as sanctioning lawyers, try to file a bogus suit in Federal Court-you WILL get spanked-It's called Rule 11. SO tell me exactly what you mean by "tort reform" .

__________________
Forum consigliere

To add to Cajun Lawyers remarks, my wife is an attorney. I have asked her about law suits against large corporations etc and she said you need to find a law firm with "deep pockets". A firm that can afford to spend the money on research into every law that relevant to the case. This means hours upon hours of looking at past decisions and the reasons for the decisions, the legislative intent of those laws. They must be able to get past the boiler plate that will be thrown by the large identities legal teams, both those under employment and those they may contract for the suit. Then, write responses to those and all the other more meaningful one filed by the defendants team. Your extremely unlikely to make it far with a new attorney or anyone else with little experience against such a force. A small firm will simply not have the resources or time for this or be willing to risk those resources even if case has some merit. Big firms with the resources (deep pockets) that can afford to invest in the time didn't get that way throwing out suits they didn't win. A firm might throw something together just to collect some "air time' and" recognition. But, they are not going to go deep into litigation. A retired attorney with resources might do something if it sparks his interest or is a particular legal position he champions. Besides the court system spanking an attorney and some of that depends on the state rules, there is also the bar which isn't going to look kindly on an attorney who files a lot of frivolous suits. There are lawyers that do file suits that have little hope of any real win but mostly they are hoping for a quick settlement that occurs simply because its cheaper to settle than to fight.

Since meeting my wife and talking with her my views on torts have changed.

There are some types of cases that will always get settled and never see a jury. I work in the oil industry. It is well know that any injury case working for big oil will never ever see a jury. No way big oil will ever let a jury come near such a case if there is any possible responsibility. They no fully well no jury is going to have any problem handing down a big settlement as nobody has one bit of sympathy for them. But as the Exxon Valdez case shows big oil can and will drag it on forever and get modifications to any judgement. I know commercial fishermen who waited forever for the big payday from the spill and most received little if any actual cash. Their dreams of new boats and retirement constantly postponed. Exxon Valdez victims finally getting payout | The Seattle Times

Not to disagree, Cajun, but I would point out that there are, and have been for awhile, activist lawyers who'll take a case for righteousness alone. In the 70s they were funding, sheltering, and defending Weather and other radicals. Today, they're busy with social justice and disarmament.

And to anti-gun liberals, that makes perfect sense!

__________________
Bill

And I would call that "legalized extortion!"

__________________
Bill

My experience as a plaintiff in a civil rights suit reflects this. In our case, it took some time willing to find a lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency. As it happened, he had just gone into private practice after several years as the lead homicide prosecutor in Suffolk County, MA. He loved going to court.

After discovery, the defendants offered a nice settlement in lieu going to trial.

Something that a different lawyer told me is that those TV lawyers generally will only take cases that they think will settle early. Low hanging fruit, as it were.

A case in point is a friend of mine who was in her brand new car when it was rear ended by a utility company truck. She had a pretty good case, but that utility company had a reputation for never settling and always litigating. It took over a year to find a lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency. She finally won, but it wasn't easy.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Wholeheartedly agree. but the vast majority of us are in it to put our kids through college, pay bills and buy guns,boats and scotch; hopefully with some left over for retirement

__________________
Forum consigliere

By "no consequences" I mean the plaintiff has no consequences that are out of his control. He knows exactly how much he can spend and can quit at any time.

The defendant has no such ability. He has to continue spending time and money for as long as the plaintiff drags it out. Plaintiffs can extort settlements by threatening to cost him more in legal fees. Regardless the outcome, the defendant always loses.

By tort reform, my first thought is 'loser pays', but probably not what you are thinking. One side would still have the ability to extort settlements by threatening to spend the other into financial ruin. Maybe cap it at which ever side spent the least?

But like you said, while the plaintiff's lawyer fronts the money for the case and can lose it, he still knows what he can lose. The plaintiff, personally, has no down side for bringing a case. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game. There needs to be some sort of process for the defendant to be made whole for winning a merit-less case brought against him.

But I would like to know what the consequence are for filing lawsuits in violation of PLCAA. Near as I can tell, the suits still happen, defendants are extorted into spending on their defense, plaintiffs aren't penalized, and judges aren't throwing out the cases a frivolous.

The McD's cheese case is another example. Who decides it is frivolous, and when? How much does McD have to spend before it happens? What happens to the plaintiff if it does? Or the coffee case from years ago?

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

Of course, I'm opposed to this type of law suit. Yet, I see parallels in suits against gun companies as with suits against tobacco companies several decades ago. After many failures, the tobacco plaintiffs eventually breeched the wall of lawyers and legal obstacles defending big tobacco companies.

As others have said, much depends on the jurisdiction where the suits are brought. Judges can and do find so-called loopholes to allow the suit to go forward, if only to cause the gun companies to expend millions of dollars defending against them.

Since the shooter was on "medication", they will have to include the pharmacutical companies involved. Talk about deep pockets.....

__________________
Ret. LE, FA Instr, S&W Armorer

Those activist lawyers are well funded by sources that are inimical to the United States and it's government. Their aim is not to protect anyone's rights, but to destroy our way of life, bit by bit.

If there were real justice in this nation, then they would at the least be barred from practicing law.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Query; By the same token should there be a way for he plaintiff to be mde whole (IE have his attorney fees and costs paid) if he prevails in a suit WITH merit?? I am all for tort reform where the looser pays the costs of litigation including lawyers fees to the prevailing party. Figure out how to do it and I'm behind you 100% Don't think for one minute that the defendants in a civil suit (be them individuals ot huge copmanies) are blameless in this....They make decisions every time on the cost benifits of fixing the problem or just paying off the occasional hit from the Courts. Problem is that the big companies have much more money to spend on the public relations commercials like law suit abuse, frivolous law sints etc that the individuals. You have pretty much drank the Kool aide which is what they wan-and quite understandable given the resources they have put in over the years throwing this pablum at the masses. Also understand that the people who really fund this nonsense are the insurance companies who make their money by minimizing the amounts paid out on legitimate claims.
You have read enough of my postings to figure out that I am not your bleeding heart but merely a guy who takes the stance you screw with me or a client, and it's gonna cost you and after I'm finished, you'll not do it again.
Well, I'm done playing here, have a nice weekend to all!!

__________________
Forum consigliere

Hey Caj,
I'm not really the rabid anti-lawyer that some are. My Dad was a lawyer, a lot of my opinions come from the way he talks about other lawyers. I've read enough of your posts to know that you are one of the good guys.

And agree with you 100% about how some would rather pay settlements than fix their problems.

I'm thinking more of how does someone protect himself against one of those who is more 'ethically challenged'?

To bring it back to the topic of the thread, I have issues with a lawyer who knowingly files a suit in violation of PLCAA. It seems to me that this is a good example of a merit-less case, but the defendant will still spend time on money on it.

Anyway, have a good weekend!

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

Caj I think that you and your answer was just plain awesome right up to the point of you buying SCOTCH. Being from Kentucky I have a problem with that statement. Bourbon still taste much better than Scotch in my opinion. But then again that is another thread.

Also I think that from what I have read what you post. You are not just a Lawyer but an awesome person that practices Law. I am really glad to be on this forum with you.

Charlie

But it will cost the defendant millions. That's my two cents . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

if the courts allow this to go forward what is to stop people suing the car manufacturer if they were in a wreck or for that matter any one manufacturing a product where someone is killed using it .. I could think of many instances ..