Connecticut’s high court says family of Sandy Hook victim can sue Remington!

I find this to be very disturbing.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that the family of a Sandy Hook victim can sue Remington, the maker of the rifle used in the school shooting back in 2012.

Here’s more:

NBC NEWS – Gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

The plaintiffs include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter Adam Lanza is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people.

Remington has denied wrongdoing and previously insisted it can’t be sued under the federal law.

The majority of the high court agreed with most of the lower court’s ruling and dismissed most of the lawsuit’s allegations, but allowed a wrongful marketing claim to proceed.

“The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.



I can’t say that I’ve ever seen much marketing from the Remington Bushmaster, but I’d be willing to bet it didn’t show someone using the gun to kill children in a school shooting.

In fact I don’t know of any gun maker that markets their firearms in an irresponsible way.

Why not just sue automakers when someone uses a car to run over people? Or knife makers when someone stabs a woman to death using their knives?

It’s just ridiculous to suggest a firearm manufacturer can be sued because someone used a firearm they made to commit an atrocity.

I hope the Supreme Court puts this activist court in its place.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

65 thoughts on “Connecticut’s high court says family of Sandy Hook victim can sue Remington!

  1. So does this mean that every victim of a drunk driver that was killed can now sue the car manufacturer??? This is as stupid as “gun free zones”!!!

  2. The problem here is that even if there is evidence that Remington was marketing weapons to high risk or mentally unbalanced people, which there isn’t, the person who bought this weapon was a single mother seeking to defend her own home. So by the plaintiff’s own theory of causation and liability, Remington is not culpable in this case by the plaintiff’s own argument.

  3. How insane , they just want to put ammo shops out of business, I doubt those sweet innocent children who died at the hands of a mad man ever crossed their minds.

  4. Taco Bell irritates my gastrointestinal tract. Do I have a case? In Connecticut, I think so.

  5. Why doesn’t the Con high court go after the big pharma, as the reason for the massacre? maybe judges are on the ‘payroll’???

  6. I subscribe to Guns And Ammo, American Rifleman and Handguns as well as several online publications and I have never seen a Remington ad that in any way encouraged this type of behavior. If this suit is successful, Rosie O’Donnell will be able to sue fork manufacturers for making her fat.

  7. So, by extension, that means if somebody deliberately jumps a sidewalk in a 755 HP Corvette ZR1 and kills a whole bunch of pedestrians, I can sue GM because not everybody is ‘qualified’ to operate such a high performance vehicle, right?

  8. What if someone used an M1 or M1 carbine manufactured during WWII? Who would they shakedown then?

  9. How about suing Stanley tools every time someone uses one of their hammers to kill someone? Or perhaps Louisville Slugger every time someone knocks the crap out of someone with one of their bats? Makes just as much sense as this stupid lawsuit.

  10. The court made a ridiculous stretch to come up with this answer. If I’m following, the argument went like this:

    1. The law passed by Congress limiting liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers has some exceptions, such as if the gun manufacturer violated other laws.
    2. There’s a law in Connecticut allowing lawsuits based on unethical marketing
    3. If the gun manufacturer HAD marketed its products by glorifying school shootings and encouraging young men to buy a gun and shoot up a school, it would clearly fall into one of the exceptions in the law that normally limits the liability of gun manufacturers.
    4. Even though that clearly didn’t happen here, the reasoning is the same as if it had: marketing the guns to school shooters would be wrong, and the manufacturers could be sued for it
    5. Therefore, the lawsuit can proceed to determine if the manufacturer crossed the line in their marketing.

    This court needs to be overturned, but they really should have to face consequences for allowing a lawsuit to proceed without any indication that there’s a genuine basis for it. Because the very fact of having to defend against a lawsuit like this — including both the legal fees and the years of discovery, sure to be leaked to the media at every opportunity — is already a severe punishment.

    1. 3 and 4 are merits considerations that aren’t appropriate before discovery. Well, 4 is, and 3 is phrased as one.

      I don’t know the pleading standards in CT and whether they’re lower or higher than the plausibility standard announced in Twiqbal (that’s a portmanteau), but even in federal court at this stage of the litigation you have to accept everything in a plaintiff’s complaint as true.

      1. I don’t think anyone argued that the manufacturer had marketed their weapons to school shooters. It seems to be a hypothetical example to justify the argument that there might potentially be circumstances where the gun manufacturers would be subject to a liability lawsuit.

        Besides, even after giving this hypothetical example, the decision immediately afterwards says, “That is not this case, yet the underlying legal principles are the same.” So there’s no claim on the table that anyone marketed guns to potential school shooters. It’s a hypothetical example to justify marketing violations as an exception to the liability protection laws.

        IOW, looking for a loophole. The kind of thing a plaintiff lawyer might try to claim, but which I would hope a responsible judge would slap down.

        It looks to be yet another example of a judge finding an excuse to argue for his preferred outcome.

        1. It’s an extreme hypothetical given to ground the decision, with the point being that the PLCAA’s exception should extend to claims of irresponsible marketing. The extreme example is put out there as a way of saying that there are facts under which everyone would agree that this cause of action is justified, and though the facts here may not be so extreme, the cause of action is the same.

          I’m not saying this was correctly decided; I don’t know enough about the PLCAA to form an opinion on that, but I see the court’s point and understand why it gave the example.

          It should also be noted that CUTPA (which I do have experiencd with) is an extremely broad law of the sort that’s perhaps too easy to bring a case under, but about as hard to win one.

  11. Can I sue Connecticut for sh*tty WWE wrestling since their base of operations is there?

  12. There’s a federal law saying this can’t be done so it will eventually be thrown out when it reaches a federal court that has even a modicum of sense.(meaning a non-liberal Judge!)

  13. Well that’s just a big ol’ pile of steaming ____________!

    How irresponsible of this ridiculous activist judge!

  14. I have a loaded Remington 12 gauge shotgun within 5 feet of me here in my office at home. It’s not going to move or harm anyone, intruder or an innocent person unless I pick it up and fire it.

    1. @Landscaper Yeah, I have an 870 that hangs on the wall when I’m home and so far it hasn’t made a break for it.

  15. Kinda like spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the restaurant that you bought the hot coffee from.

  16. Sean Davis

    Verified account

    @seanmdav
    5h5 hours ago
    More Sean Davis Retweeted justin jouvenal
    It will be thrown out with prejudice as soon as the appeal hits federal courts, because federal law explicitly prohibits suits like these.

      1. That may be exactly what they’re hoping will (fail to) happen. SCOTUS has been incredibly reluctant to make any rulings about gun rights, even in egregiously wrong rulings that disrespect previous rulings by SCOTUS. They may well be gambling that SCOTUS will let it stand, because it’s not quite the “right” case for them to want to rule on.

  17. Disgusting.

    So can fat people sue Liberty Tabletop for making them fat while they used their FORKS?

    I still feel sympathy for the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting so I say this with a heavy heart, I hope that when Remington (likely) WINS their case, they bring a countersuit for defamation.

    This is insanity and it has to be stopped and put down for good.

    1. Especially since from what I recall he stole the gun from his mother so Remington did not use marketing to sell him at all.

      1. Worse. Lanza’s mother not only failed to secure her firearms, she made sure her son had access to those firearms, her son she KNEW had MENTAL ISSUES.

        Of course we all know how that turned out. She paid the ultimate price for her foolishness.

        Your last point is spot on. The courts will look at the facts of this case and (hopefully) quickly determine that since the guns were technically “stolen,” the manufacturer had ZERO liability in this (and all) matters related.

  18. Can rape victims sue Victoria’s Secret? They glorify the lingerie. Its suggestive to young men…

  19. “The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.

    Cool, cool. So we can go after Planned Parenthood’s advertising now, right?

  20. I can’t figure out how the court came up with its ruling. If it’s based on the marketing toward young men, wouldn’t the shooter have to have been the “young man” who actually purchased the weapon?

    How is it Remington’s fault that some crazy person killed his mother and stole the gun that she bought?

    This isn’t how it works when a stolen gun is used for murder in other crimes, is it?

    1. Great point. It appears that they said the lawsuit could go forward based on the fact precedence has shown that companies can be held accountable for inappropriate marketing. The next step is to prove that Remington’s marketing has a direct relation to the events, and as you pointed out, I don’t see them winning the lawsuit due to the actual circumstances.

  21. What an idiotic decision by an obvious activist court. Lets not have any self responsibility or personal accountability. Are they trying to set the sky to be the limit in frivolous law suites?

  22. If someone is traveling 95 mph and causes a major interstate accident with multiple fatalities can the auto manufacturer be sued for making a vehicle that has the ability to travel faster than any legal speed in the US?

    1. A lot of commercials these days show vehicles on speed courses and racing around on city streets. Of course the auto manufacturers are smart and include a disclaimer.

      Perhaps rifle manufacturers will have to include disclaimer that commercial was shot with actors and rifles should not be used for shooting or something like that….

      1. Well you will know our society has finally devolved to monkey-dom when advertisements as such have to say; oh, BTW don’t shoot people.

  23. Isn’t this akin to being hit by an inattentive driver, and suing the maker of the vehicle he was driving?

    1. Well they showed an advertisement of a guy smiling and talking with his friends while driving in the car, instead of paying attention to the road with his hands at 10 and 2, so…

        1. I like stuffing an orange into the steering wheel and letting the auto-drive control the car while I play candy crush or take a nap.

  24. Such a slippery slope. Who gets to sue the big beer companies when someone is killed by a drunk driver? Many more examples. No doubt AOC loves this idiotic idea.

    1. Who gets to sue the car companies when a bad driver kills someone? Who gets to sue the cellphone makers and cellular providers when drivers kill while texting? It goes on and on and on………….

      1. Probably not. The professors would claim that while they could explain concepts to AOC, they couldn’t understand said concepts for her.

    2. How about the pharmaceutical company that manufactured the drugs that the doctor prescribed for the shooter?

  25. Guns don’t pull the trigger by themselves. Mine have been perfectly safe to live with for years. Only in the hands of madmen are they a problem. This sounds like the predominately liberal Connecticut Supreme Court trying to get rid of guns, not through legislation, but through lawsuits. This should be overturned by the US Supreme Court, if it makes it that far.

Comments are closed.