Remington bends the knee

[wvfarrier]

Buckle up, this sets a bad precedent

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sandy-hook-fa ... 00248.html

[Scott Tschirhart]

I don't think that's a fair way to look at it. The decision to settle was likely made by the bankruptcy trustee.

[GunnyMack]

And the only one that benefits is the schyster lawyers!

[Bronco]

Not good at all

[kaschi]

No, definitely not good whatsoever. It still blows my mind how any company can get sued for a product it sells legally.

[Rockrat]

Guess they will go after car makers and brewerys next with the precedent set by this

[AJMD429]

Guess they will go after car makers and brewerys next with the precedent set by this

Naaah... Cars and booze aren't dangerous to tyrants

[Scott Tschirhart]

I read that the insurance companies decided to settle this case over the objection of Remington.

Unfortunately, I see this kind of thing happen in cases all the time.

However, I do not think that this sets a precedent in the legal sense of that word.

[Sarge]

Listen to Scott on this. If Remington had lost this case at trial (and failed on appeal) then yes, a precedent in civil law would have been set.

But Remington didn't lose at trial. Someone decided the cost of settling was preferable to the cost of a drawn out litigation. This is standard practice in personal injury, product liability, sexual harassment/discrimination etc cases.

This is well known and when people file lawsuits--often for legitimate reasons--they do so knowing the odds of reaching a settlement far exceed the odds of going to trial.

[crs]

Sarge,
Do you have a patent on your line "People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice." ?

[piller]

Gentlemen, if called for Jury duty it might be a good idea to go when you can. Last time I was called was my first day on the job after changing companies. I was dismissed. I hope that I would be able to bring some sense to a jury in a trial.

OF COURSE, THIS WAS NOT A JURY DECISION AND SERVING ON THE JURY WOULD NOT AFFECT IT

I am just saying that a few more jury decisions based on good sense might help everyone. Please serve if you can.

[2ndovc]

Listen to Scott on this. If Remington had lost this case at trial (and failed on appeal) then yes, a precedent in civil law would have been set.

But Remington didn't lose at trial. Someone decided the cost of settling was preferable to the cost of a drawn out litigation. This is standard practice in personal injury, product liability, sexual harassment/discrimination etc cases.

This is well known and when people file lawsuits--often for legitimate reasons--they do so knowing the odds of reaching a settlement far exceed the odds of going to trial.

Nailed it!

I negotiate insurance settlements every day, though nowhere near the price tag on this one, it's far better to settle if you can. People tell me all the time they think they should sue Company X, Y or Z. I explain to them, not only is that going to be expensive, it's going to take forever and even if they win, most likely they will outspend the original offer and with the lawyer's take, the judgement may disappear. It's not accepting defeat, it's more; here's some $, now go away.

jb

[piller]

Jason, any idea of what sort of percentage the lawyers get?

[Scott Tschirhart]

Jason, any idea of what sort of percentage the lawyers get?

I'm not Jason, but in Texas it is typical for a lawyer to take one of these cases on a contingency of 1/3 of the recovery plus expenses. If the case actually goes to trial, the percentage generally goes up. But this is based on a contract between the plaintiff and their lawyer and I have seen pretty high percentages when there is a significant risk of an unfavorable outcome.

Generally the client recovers less than 50% of the proceeds of the settement or verdict, sometimes a lot less.

[Grizz]

Guess they will go after car makers and brewerys next with the precedent set by this

T H I S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

PLUS go after the harmacias that pumped out the killer kill shot. pharma has killed far more people in the last two years than guns have.

[stretch]

Listen to Scott on this. If Remington had lost this case at trial (and failed on appeal) then yes, a precedent in civil law would have been set.

But Remington didn't lose at trial. Someone decided the cost of settling was preferable to the cost of a drawn out litigation. This is standard practice in personal injury, product liability, sexual harassment/discrimination etc cases.

This is well known and when people file lawsuits--often for legitimate reasons--they do so knowing the odds of reaching a settlement far exceed the odds of going to trial.

Disgusting as this is, it's just a business decision based on money for the shareholders/insurance companies.
As others have said, it doesn't set a legal precedent. "Here's a lot of money. I admit no wrongdoing. Now go away and
leave me alone....."

Still, it looks bad if you don't know what you're looking at - and even a bit if you do!

If "Remington" wasn't in the middle of a bankruptcy, it wouldn't have made it to settlement.

-Stretch

[2ndovc]

Jason, any idea of what sort of percentage the lawyers get?

Scott is the lawyer, I'm just an insurance guy. If a claim I'm involved with goes to the attorneys, I rarely know the final outcome. That's why I try to explain to people that it's far better to work with me than move up the food chain. They will more than likely end up with more $ in their pocket. Moving a claim forward to the next level, the execs are going to be less likely to bend to demands and are going to be p'o'd that some goofball is wasting their time. Most of the time it's someone thinking they are "owed" more for whatever reason. This isn't a generational or blue collar/ white collar thing. I've seen it from all types and background. It usually comes down to people not reading or paying attention to their policy and have the mindset that "it should have been covered". Well, it's up to you to look out for you!

jb

[Sarge]

Sarge,
Do you have a patent on your line "People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice." ?

No patent on the truth

[piller]

Sounds as if it is mostly a money making operation for the lawyer who are looking for money. I know that not all lawyers are bad. It is like so many other situations. You only hear about the things like this, and not the good things that they do. Similarly, a Pharmacist I knew in Desoto, TX went to prison a few years ago for felony fraud. He was billing for medicines never provided to patients. Even though he was just one, it makes us all look bad by association.
The lawyer for my Grandmother and her estate is retired, but he never got rich. He was reasonably well off, but not at all what I call wealthy. My opinion is that he charged what he was worth, but could have charged a lot more. He had ethics.

[Ysabel Kid]

I am just saying that a few more jury decisions based on good sense might help everyone. Please serve if you can.

Great advice piller!

[marlinman93]

More likely the decision to settle was the trustee and the insurance company attorneys, and nothing Remington had any say so in. Not fair to point the finger at Remington for this solution.

[4t5]

Car companies better beware, if they market their cars as having excessive horsepower, or 0 to what ever speed, it will be seen as marketing toward young people, anyone gets hurt and you know what will happen. Just another way to rid the world of fossil fuel burners.

[Grizz]

Car companies better beware, if they market their cars as having excessive horsepower, or 0 to what ever speed, it will be seen as marketing toward young people, anyone gets hurt and you know what will happen. Just another way to rid the world of fossil fuel burners.

the new electrics are way faster than the average rice burner. it's the electrics that get to 60 in 2.5s

which makes your point in spades, they are marketing to the youngsters and the baby BOOMers

whoops, can we say spades any more

[4t5]

Just saw an ad by nyc , targeting children as super heroes if they get the vaccine, sorta hypicritical, no?

[RIHMFIRE]

dont they get to appeal a lower court's decision?

Besides...the fact that.... "THAT REMINGTON" company does not exists anymore!

[Ray Newman]

From the National Shooting Sports Foundation “Bullet Points”, dated 2/21/2022:

“SOTO V. BUSHMASTER SETTLED … Insurers for the defunct Remington Outdoor Company (ROC) reached a settlement for $73 million with families suing the gun manufacturer. NSSF noted that no manufacturer admitted liability and the settlement decision was reached by insurers as ROC was dissolved.”

[cas]

Perhaps the fix was in. Sets a bad precedence, maybe that was the idea.