Family of mass shooting victim sues online ammo retailers

#2
#2
lawgator1 said:
Parents of Aurora shooting victim sue ammo sellers - CNN.com

I'll be interested to see how this goes. If they can get to a jury, I think they have a shot. 4,000 rounds to some anonymous person over the internet? That's going to be tough to defend.
Click to expand...

Nope, garbage suit. If they're wanting to try to get this to lead some kind of charge that such a thing shouldn't be legal and go from there that's one thing. As it stands unless it's illegal then it's legal (which it is) and trying to jack a company up for doing something legal isn't something that should be given the light of day short of there being some kind of overt negligence somehow demonstrated. And this doesn't have that either.

I'm giving you a pass due to your well established ignorance on such matters but 4k rounds of 223/5.56 would last a bunch of people less than 6mo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#3
#3
Seems as though the company can point to some statistics in their defense. Things like how many thousands or millions of rounds did they sell to people who did not shoot up a theater? Also, how many rounds did he shoot in the theater and would that amount have been available through any other source? If he shot more than he would have been able to obtain from a local gun shop or walmart and only this particular online retailer was able to equip him to do his deed, then they might have a point. Otherwise, it is once again a case of the lawyers finding a source of money for them to go after.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
hndog609 said:
Nope, garbage suit. If they're wanting to try to get this to lead some kind of charge that such a thing shouldn't be legal and go from there that's one thing. As it stands unless it's illegal then it's legal (which it is) and trying to jack a company up for doing something legal isn't something that should be given the light of day short of there being some kind of overt negligence somehow demonstrated. And this doesn't have that either.

I'm giving you a pass due to your well established ignorance on such matters but 4k rounds of 223/5.56 would last a bunch of people less than 6mo.
Click to expand...

Your analysis of what constitutes a "valid" lawsuit is a foot wide and a millimeter deep. $40 and a grudge is all it takes to sue - getting this in front of jury may be a up hill climb but LG clearly stated that "if it went to a jury". Jury's are capable of making terrible decisions. IANAL but I believe the insurance carrier would settle long before it makes it to a court room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
Septic said:
Your analysis of what constitutes a "valid" lawsuit is a foot wide and a millimeter deep. $40 and a grudge is all it takes to sue - getting this in front of jury may be a up hill climb but LG clearly stated that "if it went to a jury". Jury's are capable of making terrible decisions. IANAL but I believe the insurance carrier would settle long before it makes it to a court room.
Click to expand...

In other words its about cashing in off someone legit or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
LG, have you ever been pulled over and ticketed for following an ambulance? Serious question.
 
#12
#12
Septic said:
Your analysis of what constitutes a "valid" lawsuit is a foot wide and a millimeter deep. $40 and a grudge is all it takes to sue - getting this in front of jury may be a up hill climb but LG clearly stated that "if it went to a jury". Jury's are capable of making terrible decisions. IANAL but I believe the insurance carrier would settle long before it makes it to a court room.
Click to expand...

What did you post that contradicts my saying it's a garbage suit that shouldn't see the light of day? That's a statement of fact. Now, if your contention is that even though it IS a garbage suit that shouldn't see the light of day it STILL could ooze it's puss covered self into the legal system then that's a possibility.

York delved further into the particulars of why it's a pretty weak suit.
 
#13
#13
BeecherVol said:
In other words its about cashing in off someone legit or not.
Click to expand...

It happens every day. Most liability claims that are made are settled by insurance carriers. Even when the insured is fault/negligence isn't clear and even when the claim is frivolous. When it's less expensive for the insurance company to settle than defend, guess what they do.

Businesses waive their right to make the choice on whether to fight or pay when they sign the insurance contract.
 
#14
#14
Septic said:
It happens every day. Most liability claims that are made are settled by insurance carriers. Even when the insured is fault/negligence isn't clear and even when the claim is frivolous. When it's less expensive for the insurance company to settle than defend, guess what they do.

Businesses waive their right to make the choice on whether to fight or pay when they sign the insurance contract.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that if this sets a precedent then it threatens not only the business in question but the entire industry. This is not something people in this business want to acknowledge ANY liability for. (And shouldn't)
 
#15
#15
hndog609 said:
What did you post that contradicts my saying it's a garbage suit that shouldn't see the light of day? That's a statement of fact.
Click to expand...

You spelled opinion wrong.

hndog609 said:
Now, if your contention is that even though it IS a garbage suit that shouldn't see the light of day it STILL could ooze it's puss covered self into the legal system then that's a possibility.

York delved further into the particulars of why it's a pretty weak suit.
Click to expand...

And that's all well and good, it may be a weak suit - but shouldn't everyone have their day in court? Again, the crux is that weak suit or not, jury's often side with victims. If that happens to be the case, one could argue that from the perspective of the plaintiffs, it was vindicated by the decision.
 
#16
#16
what kind of jail is this guy in that allows him to color his hair that alarming shade of "prison bi**h red"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#17
#17
hndog609 said:
The problem here is that if this sets a precedent then it threatens not only the business in question but the entire industry. This is not something people in this business want to acknowledge ANY liability for. (And shouldn't)
Click to expand...

The precedent isn't new. $40 and a grudge is all it takes to get your day in court with any business, for any reason.

Emotions and sympathetic juries are a fact of life and these people may be trying to take advantage of that as their way of being an advocate for their murdered daughter.

It's hard to blame these parents for wanting to do something.
 
#18
#18
Septic said:
It happens every day. Most liability claims that are made are settled by insurance carriers. Even when the insured is fault/negligence isn't clear and even when the claim is frivolous. When it's less expensive for the insurance company to settle than defend, guess what they do.

Businesses waive their right to make the choice on whether to fight or pay when they sign the insurance contract.
Click to expand...

I know how it works.

The point was it makes these comments petty and misdirected.

"Two years ago when our daughter Jessica was murdered, and we first heard the details of the massacre, I asked my husband: 'How can anyone order over 4,000 rounds of ammunition without raising any red flags? Why weren't any questions asked of the person who bought all of this ammunition?" said Sandy Phillips.
"As gun owners, parents, and citizens of this country, we hope that our lawsuit will spare other families the tragedy that we have gone through after the death of our beautiful daughter."
Click to expand...

Just spell it out. "We're trying to cash in on our daughters death through anyone involved. Doesn't matter to us if they are in the wrong. It doesn't matter if this keeps a similar situation like this from happening in the future."
 
#20
#20
BeecherVol said:
I know how it works.

The point was it makes these comments petty and misdirected.



Just spell it out. "We're trying to cash in on our daughters death through anyone involved. Doesn't matter to us if they are in the wrong. It doesn't matter if this keeps a similar situation like this from happening in the future."
Click to expand...

Who knows what their intentions are? Maybe they are money grubbing DB's or maybe they are loaded and are doing this altruistically. I would suspect however, that if the end result was a payout that online retailers (or their insurance carriers) would impose some checks and balances thus limiting their future liabilities.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just reality.
 
#21
#21
Septic said:
You spelled opinion wrong.



And that's all well and good, it may be a weak suit - but shouldn't everyone have their day in court? Again, the crux is that weak suit or not, jury's often side with victims. If that happens to be the case, one could argue that from the perspective of the plaintiffs, it was vindicated by the decision.
Click to expand...

NO! Frivolous lawsuits should never see the light of day.
 
#22
#22
Septic said:
The precedent isn't new. $40 and a grudge is all it takes to get your day in court with any business, for any reason.

Emotions and sympathetic juries are a fact of life and these people may be trying to take advantage of that as their way of being an advocate for their murdered daughter.

It's hard to blame these parents for wanting to do something.
Click to expand...

Understood. I was pointing out that in THIS case any admission of wrongdoing is basically stating "Our normal business practice is a 24/7 liability.". That's just not a genie you want to let out of the bottle and it would extend to EVERYONE in that line of business.
 
#23
#23
hog88 said:
NO! Frivolous lawsuits should never see the light of day.
Click to expand...

Who gets to decide that?

I'm all for a "loser pays" tort reform. Unfortunately the people who make our laws are comprised of lawyers who wouldn't want to lop off the head of "sue everyone" cash cow.
 
#24
#24
Septic said:
The precedent isn't new. $40 and a grudge is all it takes to get your day in court with any business, for any reason.

Emotions and sympathetic juries are a fact of life and these people may be trying to take advantage of that as their way of being an advocate for their murdered daughter.

It's hard to blame these parents for wanting to do something.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to blame these parents. More than likely it wasn't even their idea and are being used by an anti-gun group.

Bad **** happens to good people, doesn't mean suits should be filed against innocent parties.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top