Nevada Gun Makers Must Face Wrongful-Death Claims Over Las Vegas Shooting

[Joe Link]

Gun Makers Must Face Wrongful-Death Claims Over Las Vegas Shooting

A federal judge has found makers of assault rifles used by a gunman to indiscriminately shoot at concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest Musical Festival in Las Vegas in 2017 must face a wrongful death claim by the family of one of the 58 people killed.

www.courthousenews.com

Read More

 

[djthumper]

Wow, talk about a load of crap.

 

[Ura-Ki]

So, by their logic, I can now sue Dodge for making my Challenger that I have gotten speeding tickets with, or any other produce that may cause harm when used in an incorrect manor, or by those who shouldn't! What a backwards world we live it! I'm gonna sue every spoon maker for making me fat, pencils for making me mispel wirds, and combs for making me loose my hair!

 

[nvshooter]

An excellent finding! Will open-up the pro-gun argument that guns are not hated "because of what they do," but because a certain political cohort hates the very idea that guns even exist. The logic of the Fruitcake Left on this one is rotten as an old timber at a saltwater pier. The decision sounds good on its face but if you think about it from the opposite camp, the anti-Liberty dingbats have dug the grave for their own argument.

 

[nvshooter]

What a backwards world we live in!

The definition of liberalism! No man did something. The problem arose because some thing did something. The man has no responsibility. If the man has no responsibility, society can sue the maker of whatever it was that was central to the problem. Liberalism is cowardice. It's fleeing personal responsibility and taking refuge in some very shaky argument that "I'm not responsible because" I do not want to be responsible for what I do in a polite society. We who were born in the 1950s were taught personal responsibility in grade school in the 1960s. That all went down the toilet in the 1970s. Look at us now, fifty years on with the idiocy of liberalism. We blame the maker of an instrument rather than the man whom used it for criminal purposes.

 

[Belevolk]

So much hot air, a pain in the bubblegum for Colt but they did not sell the MODIFIED weapon. I seriously doubt that the manufacture can be held liable for something the customer did.

 

[4U2NV]

My Niece was killed by a Drunk Driver a while back.
I'm going to have my cousin sue the Alcohol company and Ford.
Sounds like a SLAM DUNK.
WOW all the Lawsuits Car wrecks can bring.

 

[Belevolk]

Do not forget the traffic engineer, the city, county, and state.

 

[11Charlie]

with this logic we can track down all the stupid people and sue there parents for having them!!

 

[joefoam]

Sounds as if the federal judge needs to be sent packing. As noted in above comments, this would open Pandoras box to attorneys to sue anyone and everyone for any event that occurs that causes harm to anyone or anything.

 

[johnnyray]

Gun Makers Must Face Wrongful-Death Claims Over Las Vegas Shooting

A federal judge has found makers of assault rifles used by a gunman to indiscriminately shoot at concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest Musical Festival in Las Vegas in 2017 must face a wrongful death claim by the family of one of the 58 people killed.

www.courthousenews.com

So Auto manufactures must also face lawsuits for misuse and deaths from Autos?

 

[nvshooter]

. . . this would open Pandora's box to attorneys to sue anyone and everyone for any event that occurs that causes harm to anyone or anything.

Can a father sue the maker of a General Aviation airplane that was used to smuggle drugs into the country that eventually resulted in the death of his son whom overdosed on the drugs smuggled in on that airplane? That's how inane is this decision. It negates all common sense and puts mercurial emotion into place as the overriding argument. As I wrote above, this decision lays bare the hatred and fear of firearms as a legal argument. I'm no lawyer, but I doubt fear and hatred are solid legal grounds upon which to build and prosecute a case of this nature.

 

[Belevolk]

Your point is not lost on me, the judge only said it could go forward. A real trial date is probably years away. I hope the plaintiffs have deep pockets. Colt surely has a army of attorneys that just need to be pointed in a direction.

My father tired a case with JD over a idiot that removed the shield from the muffler on his garden tractor mower. He liked to put his foot over the place made for your feet when he was mowing. He was a diabetic and his left foot in a tennis shoe became in contact with the muffler for several hours. Claimed in court that he had no feeling in his feet. He lost everything below the knee because he did not notice when he took his shoe off that he was burned.
I heard most of the trial and had to leave the courtroom several times as this guy wanted someone somewhere to be responsible for his stupidity. He did not prevail.

A modified anything is not the OEM's responsibility. Besides if the media gets anything correct I would be surprised. They reported for DAYS that the shooter had machine guns. A bump stock is not a machine gun. Anyone who has been around auto fire of anything knows the sound and how hard they can be to control. It take loads of practice to keep auto fire on target. I had a Black rife in class 3 for a while. Got so I could not afford the ammo. The dealer that sold it to me was more than happy to repurchase the gun. Found out later I was the second guy for that particular gun and pretty sure there would be more. Lost a ton of money on that toy if you include the ammo I purchased. Sure was fun 2-3 seconds at a time for a 20 round mag.

 

[nvshooter]

I hope the plaintiffs have deep pockets.

This the kind of case that would have that schmekel Doomberg slithering into the case to help pay the legal costs. I assume he could do so under some sort of "Foundation to Prevent Gun Violence" bullschumer. Doomberg is the kind of pig who'd spend a billion dollars to erase a Liberty bestowed upon all Americans by God.

 

[nvshooter]

I seriously doubt that the manufacture can be held liable for something the customer did.

When your argument is based on emotion, it's a crapshoot. It all depends upon if the attorney for the plaintiff can convince the jury that the wheppin used had the inherent ability to take control of the killer's mind, did take control of the killer's mind and did compel the killer to use the wheppin to perpetrate the crime in question. Plaintiff's attorney has to convince twelve seemingly intelligent people that one man was coerced to do as he did by an inanimate object. We who understand firearms know this to be a laughable proposition. But does a mother in her early 30s of two elementary schoolers also know that an assemblage of metal and plastic parts has no ability to get into a man's mind and direct him to commit a crime? Given how absolutely stupid we see some people to be these days, it's a question that may not have an answer...