Connect with us

Breaking News

Sandy Hook Families Receive $73 Million Settlement From Remington

Published

on

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting | Sandy Hook Families Receive $73 Settlement From Remington | featured

Relatives of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting agreed to a $73 million settlement from Remington. This is the first time in the United States that a gun manufacturer faced liability following a mass shooting.

RELATED: Alex Jones Liable For Damages in Sandy Hook Defamation Case

Remington Settles With Families of Sandy Hook Victims

Shelves of Remington shotgun shells at a popular hunting and outdoors sporting goods retailer | Remington Settles With Families of Sandy Hook Victims

After a protracted legal battle, the families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook shooting emerged victorious against Remington.

The plaintiffs sued the firearms manufacturer for the way they marketed their Bushmaster AR15-style  rifle. The gunman used this particular model to fatally shoot 20 first-graders and six teachers. He also fatally shot his mother before the school shooting, then killed himself.   

Veronique De La Rosa, the mother of six-year-old victim Noah Pozner, appeared at a press conference. She said that “Today marks an inflection point. Today is a day of accountability for an industry that has thus far enjoyed operating with immunity and impunity.”  

“Irresponsible Marketing”

In their lawsuit against Remington, the families allege that the gunmaker marketed itself irresponsibly to at-risk young men. Through product placement in violent video games, the firearm maker managed to attract youth such as the Sandy Hook shooter.

Remington, who previously filed for bankruptcy, denied the charges. The Madison, North Carolina company did not immediately respond to requests for comments from the media. 

Last July, attorneys for Remington offered nearly $33 million to settle the suit. At the time, the plaintiffs’ attorney Jon Koskoff praised Remington’s insurers for their offer.

However, the families ultimately rejected the offer. Meanwhile, gun control advocates, gun rights supporters, and firearms manufacturers remain closely glued to the case. The outcome has the potential to set a precedent for victims of other shootings to sue firearm makers. 

Complicated Settlement

Reaching the settlement took on a very complicated path as the lawsuit made its way through the State Supreme Court. Remington argued that federal law prevents gun manufacturers from liability in crimes using their products.

However, the US Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed in 2019. Last September, Remington subpoenaed school records of the victims. Attorneys for the families immediately moved to seal these records. 

Koskoff said that they have no idea why Remington would subpoena the Newtown Public School District for the victims’ records. According to the Connecticut Post, “the only relevant part of their attendance records is that they were at their desks on December 14, 2012.”

Precedent to Make Firearms Manufacturers Liable

Meanwhile, parents and relatives of the victims hope that the settlement will set a precedent for the firearm industry. Francine Wheeler, mother of Benjamin Wheeler said that the legal system gave them some justice today.

However, it’s not even close to true justice. “True justice would be our 15-year-old, healthy and standing next to us right now, but Benny will never be 15,” she said. “He will be six forever because he is gone forever. Today is about what is right and what is wrong.”

Watch the ABC News video reporting that ​​Sandy Hook families reach a $73 million settlement with Remington:

Do you agree with the decision holding Remington liable for the Sandy Hook shooting?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Do you agree to hold firearms manufacturers liable for high-profile shootings and crimes involving their products? Or, do you think this is an overreach on the part of the criminal justice system?

Tell us what you think. Share your thoughts below.

Continue Reading
9 Comments

9 Comments

  • Timothy Robert Szymanski says:

    no, it wasn’t the gun maker’s fault.They have the right to make and sell guns. They have no control who buys them. The gun makers solicit to everyone.

  • jaded says:

    On this Sandy Hook issue: I don’t mean to sound calloused. I sympathize with them on their loss. But this lawsuit that they filed was being downright Greedy! They refused the first offer to try to get more money! In my eyes, it wasn’t about the child or the principle as much as it was about the profile of the case and the money to profit from it! I am sure that they miss and loved their child, and I sympathize with their loss, but let’s not get greedy here, or do what they’re doing by being down right VENGEFUL. After all, it wasn’t the weapons fault, it was a demented persons fault. By allowing this lawsuit to be honored we are saying that manufacturers of ANY product that kills or injures are liable. Knife manufacturers, transportation vehicles, etc…. In other words, lets sue the corporation that made the product because we can’t the money out of the person that is really liable for the injury/death! One of GODS seven sins, (GREED)! Also, they will have their day at the pearly gates and wish that they had never been so VENGEFUL and GREEDY! And that will be for ETERNITY!

  • Scott says:

    What’s next sueing ice cream manufacturers because you’re fat? Seriously, this has to stop.

  • Sam says:

    Absolutely ridiculous. Thisnis nothing more than another attack on the 2nd! So I guess if someone in my family gets hurt or killed in a car accident, I can sue the car manufacturer. Insanity. I guess I’ll have to help them by buying a bunch of guns and ammo!

  • Bonnie says:

    I sympathize in there loss. The Person was not in his right frame of mind! The tool used for the killing is not relevant in all these cases. I totally agree with everyone’s comments here in this article. The weapon did NOT malfunction, so it is Not Remington’s responsibility. Yes, this was political and a greed for money. Unfortunately.

  • JR says:

    Does this mean that the families of people killed when someone runs them down in a crowd should be able to sue the auto manufacturers? The child stabbed to death should be the knife manufacturers fault? People in this country have lost all common sense. I suppose the more money they receive, the easier it is to cope with the loss. We are opening up a big pandoras box. People aren’t responsible for their actions, the maker of the instrument used is.

  • Devil Dawg 82 says:

    I’m an electrician by trade. So, if I do a wiring job at your house and you then have an electrical fire that causes damage and loss of life don’t come after me. Sue the Klein Tool Co. Those are the tools I use exclusively in my trade. This is nothing more than another blood sucking, ambulance chasing attorney taking advantage of a family’s grief to enrichen him or herself. To my knowledge, in most cases like this the attorney gets 40%. Also, if violent video games had anything to do with this why were the game manufactures not named in the lawsuit? That being said, I have played “violent” video games for over 20 years. And, while I have seen many AR platforms in those games, I have never seen a “Bushmaster” or an advertisement for the sale of any firearm in said games. Maybe I missed it or haven’t played the right game. These games have ratings just like movies. If you buy these games for your child and they are not mature enough to know the difference between fiction and reality, then the liability for their actions begins with you.

    Sorry for the rant. And while I have pity for anyone who has lost a loved one due to an act of violence a firearm is an in adamant object that only becomes dangerous in the hands of a human. I am sick and tired of law-abiding citizens or companies being blamed and or punished for the actions of the mentally ill or criminal mind. If you want to stop a threat before that threat is in range of CQC (hand to hand) you need a tool. The tool of choice for most is a firearm. In most cases a firearm only has to be brandished to end the threat. This means that “GUN” that so many hate just saved two lives without firing a shot. If I have to go hand to hand to defend myself or family, I will end that encounter as quickly as possible. This greatly reduces my chances of injury or worse but guarantees a life-threatening injury for the attacker. I am going to stop now before I need a publisher and again apologize for my long windedness. As one can see I have strong feelings for this subject.

  • Texas Heart Breaker says:

    It is beyond my ability to understand how our court system has become so disfunctional. This case should have been thrown out from the very start.
    GUNS DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER KILLED A SINGLE PERSON WITHOUT A IRRESPONSABLE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON IN THE FIRST PLACE. As long as that gun is sitting on its own. It will never kill a single person.

  • Gatnos says:

    This case sets a very dangerous precedent. Despite the law, going forward, every shooting victim will be emboldened to sue the gun manufacturer and the ammo maker and the local sporting club, etc., etc. The end result will be the demise of the gun makers. Although the anti-gun crowd will be delighted about that, so will our enemies since without gun manufacturers the U.S. will be at a disadvantage if pressed into war. This settlement was unlawful and not in the best interest of the United States. Remington (a now defunct company) should be ashamed. What were they thinking?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

SIGN UP FOR BNA NEWSLETTERS

Free Come and Take It Hat
President Trump Playing Cards offer

Copyright © 2022 Breaking News Alerts. This copyrighted material may not be republished without express permission. The information presented here is for general educational purposes only. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: You should assume that this website has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the persons or businesses mentioned in or linked to from this page and may receive commissions from purchases you make on subsequent web sites. You should not rely solely on information contained in this email to evaluate the product or service being endorsed. Always exercise due diligence before purchasing any product or service. This website contains advertisements.