Can people sue car manufacturers when they mow into crowds?
Ever since a mentally deranged person killed 27 people in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, the victims families and others have been looking for someone or something to blame. More specifically, several have focused on Remington Firearms because bad guns! Today the Connecticut Supreme Court told Sandy Hook families that yes, they can sue Remington Arms.
That argument pops up every single time there is some type of major shooting incident in this country. People want to blame the guns so badly that they willingly overlook the other facts in those cases or this one for that matter.
The mental history of the shooter and the horrifically unfortunate choices made by his mother played a significant role in what happened that day. As Deanna pointed out here, the Sandy Hook report makes it clear that the shooter had become increasingly anti-social and violent. Yet because she was SHOT BY HER OWN SON, there’s no one left to blame.
Which leads us to the lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Never mind the fact that EVERY SINGLE weapon used by the shooter was legally obtained by his mother. Never mind the fact that the shooter stole them from her. Nope. It’s the guns that did all this so let’s sue them and that will make it all better. Except that it won’t.
What is the Supreme Court’s reasoning for this ruling?
“The Connecticut high court disagreed on extremely narrow grounds, treating it as a case of illegal advertising.
It said the suit, which seeks unspecified damages for each death, could go forward under that state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a statute aimed at harmful marketing, in this case marketing not of the weapon itself but the use of the weapon as a potential tool for “offensive military style combat” by civilians, which is illegal.”
ht/ fdr in hell