https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/families-of-sandy-hook-shooting-victims-can-sue-gunmaker-remington-over-2012-attack-court-says/2019/03/14/4222b1ec-4671-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.86fb95be7965

The US is such a disturbing place.  So now can I sue a beer manufacturer for making beer that got someone drunk in a DUI accident?  WTF is wrong with the world?  Why can’t people see that it is the actions of others and not the inanimate object.

You will see lots of different companies get involved in this. Auto makers, tool manufacturers, etc. They cannot afford to let this go. Once the Pandoras Box is opened and they allow suits to proceed on a product based on the act of an individual, all bets are off on society. So can you sue Boeing for the terrorist actions on 9/11?  They made the planes.

Let the idiots rule the day today and let the smart people sit quietly and stop the stupid. Now the idiots might win in Connecticut, but it WILL get appealed to the Supreme Court no matter the outcome and I would hope that the SCOTUS is smarter than this.

Under the same premise, courts and judges could be sued if a criminal is set free and commits a crime.

I wonder if when they lose like the lawsuit against Lucky Gunner where the families were all left on the hook for attorney's fees and the Brady Campaign left them hanging the same thing will happen.  The anti-gunner campaigns push the families to sue manufacturers and when they lose they dont help them with the attorney fees. 

Let's see.  If I get a tire blow out because I run over a glass bottle and get serious hurt in the ensuing accident, who is responsible?  The bottle, tire or car manufacturer?  It cannot be me for not seeing the bottle.  Someone has to pay for my injuries.

I guess the appeal didn't amount to anything?

https://www.luckygunner.com/brady-v-lucky-gunner

Let's see.  If I get a tire blow out because I run over a glass bottle and get serious hurt in the ensuing accident, who is responsible?  The bottle, tire or car manufacturer?  It cannot be me for not seeing the bottle.  Someone has to pay for my injuries.

Everyone within a 5 mile radius because they shoulda removed the bottle from the road.

Let's see.  If I get a tire blow out because I run over a glass bottle and get serious hurt in the ensuing accident, who is responsible?  The bottle, tire or car manufacturer?  It cannot be me for not seeing the bottle.  Someone has to pay for my injuries.

https://www.kitv.com/story/40124174/should-hawaii-get-rid-of-safety-checks

sue the State for a flawed "safety check" system

Whenever you see this kind of lawsuit, two things are certain:

1. no amount of damages will bring back the dead, and

2. the lawyers are hoping for a huge settlement, not a win in court.

As long as the lawyers get their payday, and the defendants cut their losses to a reasonable amount (whatever legal fees and bad publicity is worth), it's a win-win for them.

The plaintiffs who wanted a verdict and admission of wrong-doing -- they get a check, less attorney fees.

Unless the plaintiff rejects the settlement, you know it was only about getting paid.

Bushmaster paid $2 Mil to the victims of the DC snipers in a civil suit. 

Whenever you see this kind of lawsuit, two things are certain:

1. no amount of damages will bring back the dead, and

2. the lawyers are hoping for a huge settlement, not a win in court.

As long as the lawyers get their payday, and the defendants cut their losses to a reasonable amount (whatever legal fees and bad publicity is worth), it's a win-win for them.

The plaintiffs who wanted a verdict and admission of wrong-doing -- they get a check, less attorney fees.

Unless the plaintiff rejects the settlement, you know it was only about getting paid.

All true but "we" need to stop settling and start fighting. They keep whittling away at us and eventually we WILL be Venezuala

Bushmaster paid $2 Mil to the victims of the DC snipers in a civil suit. 

That suit was against Bushmaster and the gun shop for negligence. The case was based on the fact the shooter should have been unable to buy the rifle used in the sniper killings.

The award was part of a settlement.  Another part of the settlement included "reforms" for Bushmaster's business practices. The reforms basically got ignored.  The victims were represented by The Brady Campaign.

Bushmaster admitted no wrong-doing.

The lawsuit was about money and gun control, not liability.

That suit was against Bushmaster and the gun shop for negligence. The case was based on the fact the shooter should have been unable to buy the rifle used in the sniper killings.

The award was part of a settlement.  Another part of the settlement included "reforms" for Bushmaster's business practices. The reforms basically got ignored.  The victims were represented by The Brady Campaign.

Bushmaster admitted no wrong-doing.

The lawsuit was about money and gun control, not liability.

I just recall the civil suit. Thought of it because of the following statement in the OP article.

But the decision was narrow, with the liability for gunmakers based essentially on how they advertise their weapons, rather than on the sale of such powerful weapons to third parties who then commit horrible crimes. The court said companies that market military-style guns to civilians as a way of killing enemies could be violating state fair trade laws.

Didn’t know the original settlement included “reforms”.

This is a "highly technical" legal decision. The decision itself is 71 pages, and not the double-spaced large font required by the Ninth Circuit... smaller font, single-spaced, and goes to the very bottom of the page. I just skimmed it, but it, and the 29-page dissent hinge on some rather complex legal theories. And the seven judges split 4-3... so there is apparently nothing "clear cut" in the legal weeds on this one. There is no place here, apparently, for "commonsense".

Decision: https://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf

Dissent: https://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865E.pdf

Let them also sue the bullet manufacturer, magazine manufacturer, shoe company, clothing company (no one goes postal naked), car company if he drove there or bus company, lube company if he lubricated his weapon in any way, youtube if he looked up any gun related vids, his parents and grandparents estate, the bank if he financed his home or landlord.

Sounds like AOC type of decision (Holding bank responsible if there's an oil spill)

So if the lawyers can find a memo from Bushmaster saying they target their firearm advertisement at people who will commit mass murder, then they're screwed. I guess that would be like finding an auto manufacturer's memo saying they target their advertisements toward people who drive cars recklessly. From what I see, they instead try to target douche bags, especially ads featuring Matthew McConaughey.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sandy-hook-families-win-ruling-to-seek-gun-maker-accountability-1458545731929

https://www.kitv.com/story/40124174/should-hawaii-get-rid-of-safety-checks

sue the State for a flawed "safety check" system

I like that one.  The safety sticker is advertising that they have found the vehicle to be safe to operate.  That makes people want to operate said vehicle.  All accidents caused by vehicle failure with a safety check sticker is in part the fault of the state because they endorsed the vehicle as being road worthy.

Also could extend to emissions test and if a car pollutes more than it should.  the govt advertised/endorsed the vehicle as being non polluting.

Also, now manufacturers can claim responsibility for all the good things done by their products.  When a cop catches a crook with a chevy sedan, the police owe the manufacturer credit and partial payment because they were partially responsible for capturing the criminal.

Oh boy, so much to do here.

No one will ever be responsible for anything ever again...

This is a "highly technical" legal decision. The decision itself is 71 pages, and not the double-spaced large font required by the Ninth Circuit... smaller font, single-spaced, and goes to the very bottom of the page. I just skimmed it, but it, and the 29-page dissent hinge on some rather complex legal theories. And the seven judges split 4-3... so there is apparently nothing "clear cut" in the legal weeds on this one. There is no place here, apparently, for "commonsense".

Decision: https://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf

Dissent: https://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865E.pdf

============
 really? 71 pages? How about 2 pages?