Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/9/2004 7:48:11 AM EST
"It appears that 17-year-old Malvo was able to stroll into this gun store and stroll out carrying a 3-foot-long, $1,000 Bushmaster assault rifle," Lowy said. "Bull´s Eye should have taken reasonable care to prevent guns from being stolen. Bushmaster should have required Bull´s Eye to implement simple, reasonable security measures."

http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D8505K983-252.shtml
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:52:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 7:59:18 AM EST by Jerad]
What a crock of $hit! I can't believe what people get away with when they have good attorneys. Who received all the Money? It wasn't the kid was it?

Man this is dumb

Jerad

EDIT: After seeing the link and reading the story I see that this money went to the families of the killed or injured. Still not right
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:34:14 AM EST
How finantially stable is BushMaster? Could this put them under?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:10:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 12:11:03 PM EST by arhunt576]
Bushmaster is very finantially stable. This will definetely not put them under, 2.5 million is pocket change to them.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:52:03 PM EST
I still don't think Bushmaster should have settled. It will set a bad precedent.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:57:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 1:15:43 PM EST by peekay]
I feel sorry for those families, but when they get behind the welcome arms of Brady's lawsuit, well fuck them. Sickening.

I retract my statement.

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=272543
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:57:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Blue-Flame:
I still don't think Bushmaster should have settled. It will set a bad precedent.



It does not set any legal precedent.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:00:49 PM EST
The money goes to lawyers.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 9:32:32 PM EST

It does not set any legal precedent.



I'd beg to differ. While settling does not admit wrong doing, the assumption is Bushmaster had something to do with the way the retailer was running his business. If the retailer was somehow irresponsible, why should blame be placed on a 3rd party?

I think 3rd party liability is a crock-o-shit. No matter what the industry! It's just a way that lawyers can get rich.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 9:59:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By SkagSig40:
How finantially stable is BushMaster? Could this put them under?

They have insurance for this kind of stuff.....not cheap but nesessary
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:11:41 PM EST
People are not liable for items that are stolen, and neither is a company. I understand that BullsEye was under a lot of pressure, and that they were getting pressure from a lot of different angles, but I can't see folding on this. I guess they felt it was their best option.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 3:03:36 AM EST
See: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=200451

KAC
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 3:58:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 5:40:49 AM EST by Copper54]
tHANK YOU kennyc. here's the url active www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=200451

Bushmaster didn't pay up, The chicken shit insurance company decided they didn't want to face the additional expenses of defending the suit, even though that is what Bushy has paid their premiums for.

Actually, it was probably the insurance companies lawyers. Ain't nothin lower than an insurance company attorney, well yeah there is - Gun Grabbing socialists.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:08:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 5:10:46 AM EST by shaggy]

Originally Posted By BangStick1:

It does not set any legal precedent.



I'd beg to differ. While settling does not admit wrong doing, the assumption is Bushmaster had something to do with the way the retailer was running his business. If the retailer was somehow irresponsible, why should blame be placed on a 3rd party?

I think 3rd party liability is a crock-o-shit. No matter what the industry! It's just a way that lawyers can get rich.



That may be your own personal assumption, but it is irrelevant with respect to the law and would not compromise Bushmaster in another case. The jury in another (later) case against Bushmaster would not be allowed to make that assumption. In fact, the evidence that Bushmaster (via their insurer) reached a settlement would be excluded. A settlement is neither an admission of guilt or liability, nor is it an admission of ownership or control. People settle for all sorts of reasons, often completely unrelated to the merit of the case in question or their level of involvement. Sometimes its much less expensive and risky to pay out a settlement than to fight it out in court. Additionally, an unresolved liability litigation as big as this could be very detrimental to Bushmaster's ability to secure financing and lines of credit. Settling minimizes their exposure to excessive litigation costs and risk of loss at trial, and removes the shadow of a pending litigation from their credit.

In this case, settling for $550k to the victims families was chump change in comparison to what Bushmaster may have had to spend on defending the case further. And if they did take the case to trial just to make a point, there was still the likely possibility Bushmaster could lose. In a case as this, Bushmaster could lose big - tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Settling was by far the best option; there was no better alternative here. Had they fought and lost, Bushmaster could have easily been put out of business. Had they fought and won, their legal expenses would likely have eaten up the remainder of the insurance...if not cost them a bit more out of pocket, and they would likely still be susceptible to similar claims in the future. By settling, they had no legal expenses (all were covered by the insurer), they freed their ability to secure credit, and they did not compromise their ability to litigate a future such claim or weaken their position in the least.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:20:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By Blue-Flame:
I still don't think Bushmaster should have settled. It will set a bad precedent.



It does not set any legal precedent.



Since I am not a lawyer, maybe that was not exactly correct. Let's juts say it sets a precedent. You don't think thet everytime a Bushmaster is used in a crime that Bushmaster will not get sued? And that since they settled in one case the court will not expect them to settle in others?

Bushmaster just made themselve a prime lawyer "target".
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:22:50 AM EST
I just read the other thread. Bushmaster should fire their insurance company.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:59:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Blue-Flame:

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By Blue-Flame:
I still don't think Bushmaster should have settled. It will set a bad precedent.



It does not set any legal precedent.



Since I am not a lawyer, maybe that was not exactly correct. Let's juts say it sets a precedent. You don't think thet everytime a Bushmaster is used in a crime that Bushmaster will not get sued? And that since they settled in one case the court will not expect them to settle in others?

Bushmaster just made themselve a prime lawyer "target".



When lawyers file PI suits, we usually "shotgun" it; meaning we name every possible defendant we can find in the suit so if we win, were sure to hit at least one defendant who can pay. (Please keep in mind, when I say "we" I mean attorneys in general, not me particularly. I work for a defense firm, not a plaintiff's firm). Any business with money or insurance coverage is already a "target" for a plaintiff's firm. To some extent, anytime a Bushmaster is used in a crime and there is a civil suit following, Bushmaster could be a named defendant. This is nothing particularly new. As I understand it, some of this case was premised on the claim of "negligent marketing". Bushmaster could have tried to put a nail in the coffin of this sort of claim, but for financial reasons, they apparently chose not to. It doesn't mean that had they taken it to trial and won, they would have necessarily not had to face this type of suit again. Even if they won against the Brady bunch and the DC sniper's victims, they may well have had to fend off this type of claim in future cases under a different set of factual circumstances. However, nothing about this settlement compromises or jeapordizes their ability to fight all the way through trial the next time this sort of case rears its ugly head.

It was obviously in the best interest of Bushmaster's lawyers to have Bushmaster fight this thing to the bitter end. The longer the litigation drags on, the more money they make. But the simple fact is, I'm sure they advised Bushmaster to settle. Why? Because it was in the best interest of their client (Bushmaster) to settle. They didn't lose anything here, not a dime, but they could have lost everything.
Top Top