The manufacturer was weighed down by lawsuits and retail sales restrictions following the school shooting.Īdam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman in the Sandy Hook shooting, used the rifle made by Remington and legally owned by his mother to kill the children and educators on Dec. Remington, one of the nation’s oldest gun makers founded in 1816, filed for bankruptcy for a second time in 2020 and its assets were later sold off to several companies. Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the exception to the 2005 immunity law used by the Sandy Hook families, Lytton said. Whether similar lawsuits can proceed against gun makers remains unsettled because the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle, under an exception to the federal law. The company also had said the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of the federal law that gives broad immunity to the gun industry. Remington had argued there was no evidence to establish that its marketing had anything to do with the shooting.
It’s not clear when those documents will be released. In one of Remington’s ads, it features the rifle against a plain backdrop and the phrase: “Consider Your Man Card Reissued.”Īs part of the settlement, Remington also agreed to allow the families to release numerous documents they obtained during the lawsuit including ones showing how it marketed the weapon, the families said. The civil court case in Connecticut focused on how the firearm used by the Newtown shooter - a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle - was marketed, alleging it targeted younger, at-risk males in advertising and product placement in violent video games.
But Lytton said the impact of the Sandy Hook settlement could be greater because it is so much higher. Families of eight victims of the Washington, D.C.-area snipers won a $2.5 million settlement in 2004, with $550,000 coming from Bushmaster Firearms Inc. The settlement is not the first between victims and a gun manufacturer. Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University. “We might expect to see increased pressure from insurance companies for gun manufacturers to avoid the kind of either design choices or marketing practices that gave rise to this litigation,” said Timothy D. But some experts said it may prompt insurers to pressure gun makers into making some changes. Gun rights groups said the settlement will have little effect on rifle sales and gun makers, who continue to be shielded from liability in most cases under federal law. “My hope for this lawsuit,” she said, “is that by facing and finally being penalized for the impact of their work, gun companies along with the insurance and banking industries that enable them will be forced to make their practices safer than they’ve ever been, which will save lives and stop more shootings.” “Nothing will bring Dylan back,” said Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the shooting. They said their focus was on preventing future mass shootings by forcing gun companies to be more responsible with their products and how they market them.Īt a news conference, some of the parents behind the lawsuit described a bittersweet victory. The families and a survivor of the shooting sued Remington in 2015, saying the company should have never sold such a dangerous weapon to the public. The case was watched closely by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters and manufacturers, because of its potential to provide a roadmap for victims of other shootings to sue firearm makers.
0 kommentar(er)
