Even though it has now gone to Connecticut's highest court and bounced off of SCOTUS, this case is still at an early stage.
At the trial court, we're just at the motion to dismiss. Some justices may prefer to nail down the factual basis before granting cert.
At the trial court, we're just at the motion to dismiss. Some justices may prefer to nail down the factual basis before granting cert.
Put it this way: gun manufacturers would prefer a blanket pronouncement: you cannot sue under state consumer protection laws.
But one or more justices may be thinking less categorically—i.e., you cannot sue under state consumer protection laws, except in X, Y, Z circumstance.
But one or more justices may be thinking less categorically—i.e., you cannot sue under state consumer protection laws, except in X, Y, Z circumstance.
For those justices thinking less categorically, developing the factual basis for the families' claims against Remington Arms would be helpful.
(Note: SCOTUS does not give reasoning for why it declined to take up a case, so this is pure conjecture.)
(Note: SCOTUS does not give reasoning for why it declined to take up a case, so this is pure conjecture.)
Let's be clear about what this is about. This is not a product liability case.
The only surviving cause of action is an unlawful marketing claim. Plaintiffs are arguing that Remington Arms purposefully marketed the AR-15 for unlawful use. That's what the trial will be about.
The only surviving cause of action is an unlawful marketing claim. Plaintiffs are arguing that Remington Arms purposefully marketed the AR-15 for unlawful use. That's what the trial will be about.
And, btw, as a general matter, auto companies and concrete companies and power companies and medical instrument companies who market their products for an unlawful purpose can be held liable for that.
The issue here will be what the facts show, and it's going to be a heavy lift
The issue here will be what the facts show, and it's going to be a heavy lift
Plaintiffs allege that Remington Arms marketing (and others too, but RA is the defendant) conveyed the impression that AR-15 is the tool of choice for lawbreakers.
Yes, this sounds preposterous. That's what they're going to ask a jury to believe, however.
Yes, this sounds preposterous. That's what they're going to ask a jury to believe, however.
And, as you know, juries are as smart as the general public. Will it matter that Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole the gun—nothing at all to do with RA's marketing? Stay tuned!
