Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,593 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Yahoo (AP) Article - Documents: Newtown victims' parents intend to sue

In a reminder of the upcoming anniversary of the Newtown / Sandy Hook Tragedy (Sun. 12/14), this article appears. Apparently, some of the victims' families are attempting to establish "estates" for their departed children in an attempt to sue for wrongful death. But who would they sue? The two people directly responsible for those tragic deaths are dead, themselves (Adam Lanza and his mother). Will they sue the estate of Ms. Lanza? Will they attempt to sue Peter Lanza (the father)? He's a big financial guy.

Or, as I suspect / fear, will they use this as an attempt to go after 2A orgs like the NRA? :thumbsdwn



:couchpopcorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,531 Posts
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/sandy-hook-parents-filing-notices-wrongful-death-claims-article-1.2039040

Sources said that the families also are considering suing the insurance company that holds the insurance policy for Nancy Lanza’s Newtown home. Nancy Lanza’s probate estate is still open but the largest asset — the home where she was killed by her son before he drove to the Sandy Hook school — was turned over to the town. The estate has about $64,000, according to probate filings.

But Nancy Lanza did have homeowners insurance, which could become a target in a lawsuit that argues she was negligent to allow her troubled son access to weapons and ammunition, including the Bushmaster used in the massacre.

Under state law, a lawyer would have to have a lawsuit in the hands of a state marshal by Sunday, not necessarily filed in court. The marshal then has 30 days in which to serve the parties being sued.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,240 Posts
Nothing like trying to make money off your dead kid.
True, I don't understand to what point they are suing for. No amount of money is going to bring their kid back.

Though it is encouraging that they are going after Ms Lanzas' estate, as she was at least 60% responsible IMO.

Though in truth, it would not surprise me if they didn't try to sue Bushmaster. Neither would it surprise me if Bushmaster just paid them off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,593 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
True, I don't understand to what point they are suing for. No amount of money is going to bring their kid back.

Though it is encouraging that they are going after Ms Lanzas' estate, as she was at least 60% responsible IMO.

Though in truth, it would not surprise me if they didn't try to sue Bushmaster. Neither would it surprise me if Bushmaster just paid them off.
I was a bit more concerned with them trying to sue/embarrass the 2A rights orgs (like the NRA). I don't believe that there's any legal ground for it, but they could try the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" method. :dunno As long as they get the case out on the MSM and to the "sheeples," it's a win for them, even if it isn't a "legal" win.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,735 Posts
I was a bit more concerned with them trying to sue/embarrass the 2A rights orgs (like the NRA). I don't believe that there's any legal ground for it, but they could try the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" method. :dunno As long as they get the case out on the MSM and to the "sheeples," it's a win for them, even if it isn't a "legal" win.
That's been tried before and continues to this day, it's not worked yet. I don't worry about, just more fodder that goes nowhere even if they name the nra [ very unlikely as they know there's no cave in to settle out of court by them ]. Discrediting of the nra is ongoing, something we'll all deal with for a long time.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
What about the school? I agree it is just to get it in the media again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,593 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
What about the school? I agree it is just to get it in the media again.
I guess they'd have to go after the Board of Ed. But that might cause a bit of friction with parents who still have children in the system...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
If there's any true negligence it lies in the states "no guns" policy that guaranteed the safety of the shooter.

I'd love to see a case that draws a connection between previous mass shootings and "gun free" zones. Considering that such a small percentage of public places are "gun free" yet they host nearly every mass shooting, there are questions to be asked.

Why was such a dangerous policy kept in place?
How many times does a policy have to fail before it becomes negligence?
Considering the track record of "gun free" zones, could this have been anticipated?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,075 Posts
The lawyers are the only winners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,960 Posts
Nothing quite as pathetic as a lawsuit looking for a target!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,365 Posts
I guess they are suing the 2nd A. Which means they are suing the Federal Government. This will be interesting...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,547 Posts
I guess there are possibilities for a lawsuit. Generally, a lawsuit is for negligence which is often covered by insurance. If his mom was negligent in failing to secure firearms with her intimate knowledge of his proclivities or personality, that might be viable. If the shrink that treated the guy knew something and did nothing, that could be viable. We are seeing cases these days where the shrink surfaces or past records come to light that a shooter has been displaying warning signs for a long time. I think the shrink does have a responsibility to public safety under certain circumstances.

With these kids being murdered by a wack job that might not have been if precautions had been taken, I'm all for the parents right to bring a legal claim. There's a 7th amendment following the 2nd that we hold so sacrosanct.

Snippy lawyer hater comments aside, if it becomes more expensive to the psychiatric profession to ignore these type of ticking time bombs like Lanza, they will change. Our second amendment will not be attacked because of crazies not being dealt with and folks as well as kids may be safer. I'm in favor of that.

Maybe positive change will happen like armed responders in schools "good guy with a gun" , abolition of "no gun" zones and the like. Those exploding Ford Pintos were stopped by those awful lawyers who made it more expensive to ignore safety therefore change occurred.

If the pin-headed advertiser lawyers grab these cases as an advertising platform or a political platform, bad/ However, if a decent lawyer brings an action for a preventable murder had someone followed the rules, good for them and I hope the parents get something to assuage the suffering, that's all our constitutionally protected system allows for redress of injuries. It is as inviolate as the second amendment to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,899 Posts
I guess there are possibilities for a lawsuit. Generally, a lawsuit is for negligence which is often covered by insurance. If his mom was negligent in failing to secure firearms with her intimate knowledge of his proclivities or personality, that might be viable. If the shrink that treated the guy knew something and did nothing, that could be viable. We are seeing cases these days where the shrink surfaces or past records come to light that a shooter has been displaying warning signs for a long time. I think the shrink does have a responsibility to public safety under certain circumstances.

With these kids being murdered by a wack job that might not have been if precautions had been taken, I'm all for the parents right to bring a legal claim. There's a 7th amendment following the 2nd that we hold so sacrosanct.

Snippy lawyer hater comments aside, if it becomes more expensive to the psychiatric profession to ignore these type of ticking time bombs like Lanza, they will change. Our second amendment will not be attacked because of crazies not being dealt with and folks as well as kids may be safer. I'm in favor of that.

Maybe positive change will happen like armed responders in schools "good guy with a gun" , abolition of "no gun" zones and the like. Those exploding Ford Pintos were stopped by those awful lawyers who made it more expensive to ignore safety therefore change occurred.

If the pin-headed advertiser lawyers grab these cases as an advertising platform or a political platform, bad/ However, if a decent lawyer brings an action for a preventable murder had someone followed the rules, good for them and I hope the parents get something to assuage the suffering, that's all our constitutionally protected system allows for redress of injuries. It is as inviolate as the second amendment to me.
Excellent post sir!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,240 Posts
I guess there are possibilities for a lawsuit. Generally, a lawsuit is for negligence which is often covered by insurance. If his mom was negligent in failing to secure firearms with her intimate knowledge of his proclivities or personality, that might be viable. If the shrink that treated the guy knew something and did nothing, that could be viable. We are seeing cases these days where the shrink surfaces or past records come to light that a shooter has been displaying warning signs for a long time. I think the shrink does have a responsibility to public safety under certain circumstances.

With these kids being murdered by a wack job that might not have been if precautions had been taken, I'm all for the parents right to bring a legal claim. There's a 7th amendment following the 2nd that we hold so sacrosanct.
Snippy lawyer hater comments aside, if it becomes more expensive to the psychiatric profession to ignore these type of ticking time bombs like Lanza, they will change. Our second amendment will not be attacked because of crazies not being dealt with and folks as well as kids may be safer. I'm in favor of that.

Maybe positive change will happen like armed responders in schools "good guy with a gun" , abolition of "no gun" zones and the like. Those exploding Ford Pintos were stopped by those awful lawyers who made it more expensive to ignore safety therefore change occurred.

If the pin-headed advertiser lawyers grab these cases as an advertising platform or a political platform, bad/ However, if a decent lawyer brings an action for a preventable murder had someone followed the rules, good for them and I hope the parents get something to assuage the suffering, that's all our constitutionally protected system allows for redress of injuries. It is as inviolate as the second amendment to me.
Well said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,593 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
True, I don't understand to what point they are suing for. No amount of money is going to bring their kid back.

Though it is encouraging that they are going after Ms Lanzas' estate, as she was at least 60% responsible IMO.

Though in truth, it would not surprise me if they didn't try to sue Bushmaster. Neither would it surprise me if Bushmaster just paid them off.

Indeed the first step... Yahoo - Families of Newtown Victims Sue Rifle Manufacturer -
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
Does anyone know if CT has a "Joint & Several Liability" law (like Florida used to have)? If they do, all plaintiffs need is to have the jury declare the "deep pockets" party 1% culpable, and that party could end up footing the entire judgment (assuming the plaintiffs win).

If they don't have a Joint & Several Liability law, the defendants can only be held responsible in the judgment amount for their corresponding percentage of culpability.

After the shooter, I think the School Board of most culpable. How could the School Board leave innocent children utterly defenseless for a maniac to shoot like ducks in an arcade game? The monsters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
Just saw on the news that the newtown parents are suing Bushmaster because an AR-15 is too powerful of a weapon to be sold for civilian use.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top