Case decision cited (NY’s inferior state courts are the Supreme Court’s.)
On appeal I see REVERSAl.
Not knowing anything about the particular laws here… yeah, that sounds like a decision that is going to be reversed sooner or later.
I don’t see where the manufacturer was held liable; could you point it out?
All I see is that the guy can sue them. But then, pretty much anyone can sue anyone for anything. The whole point is to let a trial judge or jury decide the case, I thought.
For a law buff, you certainly have an interesting idea of what “liable” means.
This
[Quote=Reuters]
But the appeals court held that the law, which was signed by President George W. Bush, doesn’t provide immunity to gun companies that illegally supply gun traffickers or irresponsible dealers
[/quote]
seems to be reason for the decision.
edited to add link to original article.
I meant to put ??? after the statement!
I know the difference between what decided liablity means and a Cause of Action that is permitted to proceed, feel better???
Since that makes a big difference, I’ve added a question mark to the thread title. (Only one question mark. Two exclamation points and four question marks was too much.)
Thank you, as the summary quoted, as I quoted;
…can sue…
Can sue is not an adjudication of the merits. Can sue is similar in nature to a RIGHT of Action, different from a CAUSE of Action.
Right, my error on the thread title emphasis.
Can’t see this going anywhere. You can’t sue Ford for making the car you drove into a crowd of nuns and babies, you can’t sue Captain Morgan for your alcoholism.
Well, of course, technically you can, but you’re not going to win.
See post #5.
You never know…if the judge doesn’t throw it out, as long as the “victim” seems pathetic enough, and the corporation faceless enough to the jury, they may award cash despite how stupid the suit is.
Remember when DOW Chemical lost a suit due to the damning evidence of “exactly the same percentage of people with breast implants as without get this horrible, deadly disease”?
(bolding mine)Does this make any difference at all?
Remember the “Obesity” lawsuit where a man sued some fast food chains claiming they were in part responsible for overweight people, the complaint was dismissed upon a Motion to do so.
Probably not. It isn’t the manufacturer’s job to police the retailers.
That’s not the problem that was brought forward.
edited to add-It wasn’t that they tried to find this information-it was that they already had this information.
Is there a legal difference between knowingly and unknowingly aiding and abetting?
Define “irresponsible dealers.”
If they have the government paperwork that says they are legitimate, authorized dealers, it’s on them, not the manufacturer. OTOH, if they didn’t have that stuff, then they’d be liable for something else altogether, not the shooting itself.
Why? I don’t recall using that term.
sigh…your Reuters quote did.