Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/9/2004 2:13:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 2:15:54 AM EST by millsusaf]
I heard on the news this morning that Bushmaster agreed to pay over $500,000 and the gun store that sold the AR to the DC shooter (I refuse to call them snipers) agreed to pay over $2 million to the victims. It is amazing that AR must have pulled it's own trigger, and I'm sure the gun shop owner must have been in the trunk with em. Why does this nation refuse to hold accountable the ones that are responsible? Crazy!


B.S.!!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:43:32 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:45:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
They probably figured 500K would be cheaper than paying the lawyer fees.


It sucks, but usually the way things work.




Yep.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:54:10 AM EST
The last thing that we need in the White House is a trial lawyer!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:55:03 AM EST

Originally posted by millsusaf:
I heard on the news this morning that Bushmaster agreed to pay over $500,000 and the gun store that sold the AR to the DC shooter (I refuse to call them snipers) agreed to pay over $2 million to the victims. It is amazing that AR must have pulled it's own trigger, and I'm sure the gun shop owner must have been in the trunk with em. Why does this nation refuse to hold accountable the ones that are responsible? Crazy!



First of all, Lee Boyd Malvo stole the Bushmaster from the gunshop in Tacoma. It was never purchased legally.
Liberal judges and liberal trial attorneys have done their best to strip criminals from personal responsibility for their actions. We now hold inatimate objects responsible for death and damage.
Unfortunately the gunmaker immunity bill which had the AWB renewal attached to it, died in the Senate earlier this year. Although seeing the immunity bill fail sucked ass, atleast the bill died once the AWB rider renewal was rejected by the Senate. It would have been a huge step in the right direction to grant gun manufacturers immunity from frivelous lawsuits like those from the post-DC "sniper" shootings.

HS1
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:08:16 AM EST
Check out www.bushmaster.com. From what I read, the $550,000 was from insurance proceeds and was not paid by bushmaster.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:10:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By magneto:
The last thing that we need in the White House is a trial lawyer!



Amen to that!! Edwards is a personal injury attorney!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:36:18 AM EST
Just fyi, Edwards has killed the medical profession in North Carolina. We have doctors leaving the state at record rates. One neurologist left because his insurance went up 500% in one year. All this thanks to Edwards and his malpractice claims.

Don't get me wrong, if the doctor is at fault, there should be some remedy. But the payout should be reasonable, and not finance a family for the next century!!!

I wonder what Edwards answer to health care would be? Hopefully he won't get the chance to tell us....
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:41:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 3:41:37 AM EST by Iram]

Originally Posted By millsusaf:
I heard on the news this morning that Bushmaster agreed to pay over $500,000 and the gun store that sold the AR to the DC shooter (I refuse to call them snipers) agreed to pay over $2 million to the victims. It is amazing that AR must have pulled it's own trigger, and I'm sure the gun shop owner must have been in the trunk with em. Why does this nation refuse to hold accountable the ones that are responsible? Crazy!


B.S.!!!!!!



Well, I don't think I can morally purchase firearms or firearm parts from a company that will take responsiblity for what it did not do. Time to go searching for a new toystore.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:54:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Iram:

Originally Posted By millsusaf:
I heard on the news this morning that Bushmaster agreed to pay over $500,000 and the gun store that sold the AR to the DC shooter (I refuse to call them snipers) agreed to pay over $2 million to the victims. It is amazing that AR must have pulled it's own trigger, and I'm sure the gun shop owner must have been in the trunk with em. Why does this nation refuse to hold accountable the ones that are responsible? Crazy!


B.S.!!!!!!



Well, I don't think I can morally purchase firearms or firearm parts from a company that will take responsiblity for what it did not do. Time to go searching for a new toystore.



I was a little disturbed by the agreed part when I heard it this morning.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:27:41 AM EST
It sets a very bad precedent for the industry, I'm not a legal advisor but Bushmaster are a very wealthy company and could afford to fight this one. They have sent a message to every trial lawyer now; others in the business will be paying for this.
Bad day
HFG
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:39:32 AM EST
You all should check out Bushmasters web site. They did the right thing
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:18:52 AM EST

Well, I don't think I can morally purchase firearms or firearm parts from a company that will take responsiblity for what it did not do. Time to go searching for a new toystore.


AMEN!! You cannot support a company that willingly sacrifices the good of the entire industry just to save their butts.

Time to buy somewhere esle.


There comes a time when you have to make a stand based on values and morals, and simply standing on what is right because of the principals involved. If there ever was an issue that required you taking a stand, this is it.

Bushmaster has shwon its true colors, and they are YELLOW.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:21:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By bjurkovski:
You all should check out Bushmasters web site. They did the right thing



NEVER. Life is not just about money, and keeping what you have. It's about standing for what is right. And what they did was WRONG!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:28:42 AM EST

You all should check out Bushmasters web site. They did the right thing




Agreed, Bushmaster and firearm owners are the real winners. Unless you believe the medias lies!!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:40:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 6:42:16 AM EST by Marksman14]
I will continue to support bushmaster.

If you're so concerned about Bushmaster "giving in", then you shouldn't like ANY AR manufacturer.

Based on your logic, companies like Colt, DPMS, RRA, Armalite, and every other AR manufacturer should have donated money to Bushmaster to fight this...because they obviously support the second amendment...but none of them opened their wallets to the cause. Wonder why...

I'm sure the other companies supported Bushmaster, but since they didn't do anything about it either, are you going to call them "yellow"?

I don't think they let the community down. I don't think the community let them down. Its just the way things go, and they made the best move that they thought they could make regardless of what you feel about it. A decision had to be made, right or wrong. Just remember. If it was as simple as values and what you believe in then the OTHER manufacturers should have stepped in.

YOU SHOULD HAVE STEPPED IN. But I'm sure you didn't go throwing money at them for defense did you?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:55:50 AM EST
Bushmaster did the right thing.

They could have gotten a sympathetic jury and got socked for mega-millions, which only hurts their continued participation in our sport and in our struggle to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights. As tempting as it may seem to spend millions in legal fees to "fight" on principle, none of us are in their shoes. I have been a lawyer for 15 years, and I have seen the good and the bad when it comes to situations like this. If you can, derive some consolation in the fact that Bushmaster, I'm sure, absolutely HATED the idea of any settlement here. But, there is always a practical side to litigation, and cooler heads (namely officers and directors) must prevail. Remember: juries always deliver a judgment, not necessarily "justice."

Consider the facts: (1) the $550K was paid out from the remainder of the insurance policy limits, (2) the money was ear-marked for victims' families only (no legal fees for Brady); (3) additional demands made by Brady were steadfastly rejected, (4) Bushmaster made absolutely no admissions of liability, and (5) the case is OVER!

Now Bushmaster can grow its business in the post-AWB world and concentrate its resources on what it does best. I know full well that many of you will never accept this, and that is understood and expected in this very diverse and intense group here on AR15.com. If money were unlimited, I have no doubt that Bushmaster would have seen this through to a judgment in its favor.

All the more reason to press your legislators to re-submit legislation (like the one that failed earlier this Spring) that will shield gun manufacturers from liability for these kinds of lawsuits. If we don't, well-funded plaintiff's will make it their goal "nickel and dime" gun manufacturers like this time and again. Our time and our money is best spent on supporting Bushmaster (and any other manufacturer similarly situated), because if you "boycott" these guys, I can almost bet that your new preferred vendor will find itself in the same boat before long.

As Benjamin Franklin said wisely, "We must hang together, or we shall surely hang separately."
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:14:39 AM EST
The only thing I worry about is that they may have set a precedent. This is the first time a gun manufacture has settled on a case involving the use of its firearms. Whether it is right or wrong for them to settle this case, I don't know. I just worry about the floodgates opening and trial lawyers bringing even more cases looking for settlements
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:23:51 AM EST
Tis sad commentary that people and corporations have to settle rather than take a principled stand just because the lawyers have over run our country and encourage frivilous litigation.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:30:02 AM EST
You ever feal like we are becoming more & more like Wussy ass France every day. Thats what happens afrer a country ripens. It turns to wine.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:31:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
They probably figured 500K would be cheaper than paying the lawyer fees.


It sucks, but usually the way things work.



I'm sure that's what they are thinking but IMO they are wrong. This settlement just opens them, and every other manufacture up to other law suits. Lawyers are truly like sharks, when they smell blood, they attack and because of this settlement, Bushmaster, and the whole firearms industry, is bleeding.


Originally Posted By Chedderboy:
Check out www.bushmaster.com. From what I read, the $550,000 was from insurance proceeds and was not paid by bushmaster.



Sorry but I have to say it's that attitude that allows a lot of these lawsuits to happen. The insurance company may be writing the check but it is us that will pay. You really think the insurance company is going to eat this lose? Hell no, they will raise BM's (and probably any other gun manufactures that they insure) rate to compensate for the lose. Do you think BM will then eat the lose? Hell no, they will raise their prices to compensate.

I feel as bad for the victims and their families as anybody but I don't see where they are entitled to a dime from anybody. Not trying to preach too much but this new mentality in this country of "have something bad happen to you and you then get to sue everybody under the sun until you get some cash" is one of the biggest things bringing us down as a society. Truly sickening
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:32:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By FALbert:
Tis sad commentary that people and corporations have to settle rather than take a principled stand just because the lawyers have over run our country and encourage frivilous litigation.




Dude, it's the judges, not the lawyers. Sure they play their part. But, for every money-hungry plaintiff's lawyer, there is AT LEAST one lawyer on the opposite side. Judges are the ones with the power to dismiss cases and restrict evidence, including the appellate judges who hear the case when the plaintiff loses. You need to fight this at the election and campaign finance level. And non-lawyers and non-judges who sit on juries render verdicts. THAT MEANS YOU!!

People are often quick to blame lawyers, but if you really look at the facts (like we want people to do with the AWB), you'll quickly see what I'm saying is true.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:47:25 AM EST
Marksman14, check your facts - right when this started Bushmaster was approached by industry and owners alike offering financial support. Bushmaster posted that they appreciated the offers but would not accept them at that time.
HFG
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:50:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By ipguy:

Originally Posted By FALbert:
Tis sad commentary that people and corporations have to settle rather than take a principled stand just because the lawyers have over run our country and encourage frivilous litigation.




Dude, it's the judges, not the lawyers. Sure they play their part. But, for every money-hungry plaintiff's lawyer, there is AT LEAST one lawyer on the opposite side. Judges are the ones with the power to dismiss cases and restrict evidence, including the appellate judges who hear the case when the plaintiff loses. You need to fight this at the election and campaign finance level. And non-lawyers and non-judges who sit on juries render verdicts. THAT MEANS YOU!!

People are often quick to blame lawyers, but if you really look at the facts (like we want people to do with the AWB), you'll quickly see what I'm saying is true.



I'll go you one better, IMO it's the jury's fault. A Lawyers job is to make an argument that supports their case. A judges job is to determine if the argument is "legal" within our system. It's the jury's job to determine if that argument is BS. All too often these jury's feel bad for the plaintiffs and figure the big company (or insurance co.) can afford to pay so even though they may know its BS they award the poor pitiful plaintiff the money as a "sorry for your bad luck" present. Everybody knows this which is why companies see it as safer and potentially cheaper to settle. Sad
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:56:04 AM EST
Weren't there alot of people on this board and all over the country who ordered rifles, uppers, acessories and other stuff from Bushmaster specifically to aid them financially in their fight against this bogus case? Do you think all of those people would have ordered stuff from Bushmaster at the time if they knew Bushmaster was just going to settle the case?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:02:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By ipguy:

Originally Posted By FALbert:
Tis sad commentary that people and corporations have to settle rather than take a principled stand just because the lawyers have over run our country and encourage frivilous litigation.




Dude, it's the judges, not the lawyers. Sure they play their part. But, for every money-hungry plaintiff's lawyer, there is AT LEAST one lawyer on the opposite side. Judges are the ones with the power to dismiss cases and restrict evidence, including the appellate judges who hear the case when the plaintiff loses. You need to fight this at the election and campaign finance level. And non-lawyers and non-judges who sit on juries render verdicts. THAT MEANS YOU!!

People are often quick to blame lawyers, but if you really look at the facts (like we want people to do with the AWB), you'll quickly see what I'm saying is true.



Agreed. Still, judges = lawyers. Nuff said.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:16:17 AM EST
The only good aspect is that by settling out of court, it helps not set a legal precidence for the future, unless there is something like this already in the books.

It does suck though.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:21:56 AM EST
What you guys don't get is that Bushmaster had no say in the decision. The insurance company is the one who has final say on the settlement. It probably went like this:

Bushmaster: I don't want to settle... we didn't do anything wrong.
Insurance: Sorry, but we have run the numbers, you will settle and we'll pay for it.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:40:53 AM EST
In the course of the 30 years I lived in WA, I became friends with the owner of Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. He is a very good guy and veteran. He ended up paying $2M in this shit-throw. As was pointed out in an earlier post, the BM rifle was stolen from his gun store. I think this outcome is as troubling, if not more so, than the Bushmaster/insurance co. settlement. How many gun stores are going to want to risk HUGE lawsuits just to stay in business. It will be very hard to buy a firearm if there aren't any gun stores.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:23:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By HipFiredGun:
Marksman14, check your facts - right when this started Bushmaster was approached by industry and owners alike offering financial support. Bushmaster posted that they appreciated the offers but would not accept them at that time.
HFG



I was just basing my comments on principle...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:05:24 PM EST
These frivolous lawsuits sadden me tremendously. I hope it never gets to the point where retail stores are sued for selling ammunition and ammunition manufacturers are sued for making lethal cartridges.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:06:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 12:14:14 PM EST by shaggy]

Originally Posted By HipFiredGun:
It sets a very bad precedent for the industry, I'm not a legal advisor but Bushmaster are a very wealthy company and could afford to fight this one. They have sent a message to every trial lawyer now; others in the business will be paying for this.
Bad day
HFG



Bushmaster may have been able to afford to take it to trial, but they probably would have run out of insurance money. Major litigations like this can cost enormous sums. Currently I'm working on a major case which is costing our client well in excess of $50k/week in fees and associated costs...and this has been going on for more than a year - do the math. I've also been involved in the administration of settlements in asbestos class actions. In that instance, even though we paid out hundreds of millions for many claims without any real merit, it was chump change in comparison to the potential cost of litigating every claim or the cost of merely losing on just a few.

Settlements do not set any legal precedent and do not compromise a company's potential to litigate future claims. They are merely a cost effective way of minimizing litigation risk and allowing the company to dispose of claims so they can move ahead with going about their business, unencumbered by the possibility of economically fatal claims.

I know we all like to beat our chest about the principle here, but Bushmaster is a company, and as such their primary duty is to their shareholders, their creditors, and their employees. It is not to stand on principle just as a feel-good measure to the point that they jeopardize the very existance of the company when more feasible options are available.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:37:36 PM EST
They might not set a 'legal' precedent but they send a signal to trial lawyers that they can extort money from companies legitimately and legally going about their business because the potential cost of fighting these lawsuits is so great. All this does is push up insurance premiums for other manufacturers.

Bushmaster is not a public company, it's a closed company where the majority of shares are held by the owner, in addition, Bushmaster's revenues exceed Ruger's (a quoted company on the NYSE) and they do this running a lower overhead, their business model is excellent. My point was that they had the steam to finish this and they chose to buy their way out which will more than likely result in repercussions for others in the industry.
HFG
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:03:37 PM EST
BM's website has a great explanation, it appears that BM paid out nothing, and the suing lawyers also received nothing.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:24:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 2:26:27 PM EST by shaggy]

Originally Posted By HipFiredGun:
They might not set a 'legal' precedent but they send a signal to trial lawyers that they can extort money from companies legitimately and legally going about their business because the potential cost of fighting these lawsuits is so great. All this does is push up insurance premiums for other manufacturers.

Bushmaster is not a public company, it's a closed company where the majority of shares are held by the owner, in addition, Bushmaster's revenues exceed Ruger's (a quoted company on the NYSE) and they do this running a lower overhead, their business model is excellent. My point was that they had the steam to finish this and they chose to buy their way out which will more than likely result in repercussions for others in the industry.
HFG



HFG,

If you think this is going to send any sort of signal that wasn't already there, you're sadly mistaken and need to wake up to the realities of the business of litigation. Its widely known and accepted among lawyers that many meritless claims against deep pocket clients are only filed for their insurance & settlement value. This is nothing new; plaintiff's firms use this tactic all the time against all sorts of companies; gun manufacturers are just the latest. A few years ago I was involved in a car accident where it was completely known to my insurer the plaintiff was faking his injuries (they had him on video lifting weights at the gym...and this guy was bigger than Mike Tyson). Yet the insurance company settled and gave the guy about $35k just to be rid of the suit and minimize any further exposure. That is just how business is done in the world of law and insurance.

Additionally, you don't seem to have any idea of the potential downside for Bushmaster here. On a claim for negligent marketing they may very well lose and could be liable for tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Litigation is not cheap and success is never guaranteed. Juries can be very unpredictable and in a case of multiple murders, a jury could be very sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Here the downside was far more menacing than the measley payout their insurance company gave. This was a business decision, not a policy decision, and it won't compromise Bushmaster's ability to litigate these sorts of claims in the future, nor will it compromise any other gun manufacturer's ability to litigate claims in the future.

As to their ownership, its really immaterial who owns Bushmasters shares. The fact is, they're a profit making venture, not a non-profit vehicle for pushing an agenda or a shift in public policy. Its easy to sit behind your computer and play Monday morning quarterback with someone else's business and someone else's money. Until its your money on the line - your company, your employees, your creditors, and your good name at risk, its really disingenuous to say what they should or shouldn't have done without all the facts.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:43:42 PM EST
First winchester ammunition then Colt then S&W now Bushmaster, Whos next
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:45:32 PM EST
they will sue the military next for teaching him how to shoot a gun
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:48:20 PM EST
if they could i bet they would.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:20:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 3:21:06 PM EST by HipFiredGun]

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By HipFiredGun:
They might not set a 'legal' precedent but they send a signal to trial lawyers that they can extort money from companies legitimately and legally going about their business because the potential cost of fighting these lawsuits is so great. All this does is push up insurance premiums for other manufacturers.

Bushmaster is not a public company, it's a closed company where the majority of shares are held by the owner, in addition, Bushmaster's revenues exceed Ruger's (a quoted company on the NYSE) and they do this running a lower overhead, their business model is excellent. My point was that they had the steam to finish this and they chose to buy their way out which will more than likely result in repercussions for others in the industry.
HFG



HFG,

If you think this is going to send any sort of signal that wasn't already there, you're sadly mistaken and need to wake up to the realities of the business of litigation. Its widely known and accepted among lawyers that many meritless claims against deep pocket clients are only filed for their insurance & settlement value. This is nothing new; plaintiff's firms use this tactic all the time against all sorts of companies; gun manufacturers are just the latest. A few years ago I was involved in a car accident where it was completely known to my insurer the plaintiff was faking his injuries (they had him on video lifting weights at the gym...and this guy was bigger than Mike Tyson). Yet the insurance company settled and gave the guy about $35k just to be rid of the suit and minimize any further exposure. That is just how business is done in the world of law and insurance.

Additionally, you don't seem to have any idea of the potential downside for Bushmaster here. On a claim for negligent marketing they may very well lose and could be liable for tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Litigation is not cheap and success is never guaranteed. Juries can be very unpredictable and in a case of multiple murders, a jury could be very sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Here the downside was far more menacing than the measley payout their insurance company gave. This was a business decision, not a policy decision, and it won't compromise Bushmaster's ability to litigate these sorts of claims in the future, nor will it compromise any other gun manufacturer's ability to litigate claims in the future.

As to their ownership, its really immaterial who owns Bushmasters shares. The fact is, they're a profit making venture, not a non-profit vehicle for pushing an agenda or a shift in public policy. Its easy to sit behind your computer and play Monday morning quarterback with someone else's business and someone else's money. Until its your money on the line - your company, your employees, your creditors, and your good name at risk, its really disingenuous to say what they should or shouldn't have done without all the facts.



Your opinion was not shared by any of the manufacturers I spoke with today who brought this up in conversation; I offered mine and you have offered yours, that's all. Your opinion is colored by your business, mine is colored by mine and by the govt $'s we pay out for the products we need.
HFG
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:50:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By HipFiredGun:

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By HipFiredGun:
They might not set a 'legal' precedent but they send a signal to trial lawyers that they can extort money from companies legitimately and legally going about their business because the potential cost of fighting these lawsuits is so great. All this does is push up insurance premiums for other manufacturers.

Bushmaster is not a public company, it's a closed company where the majority of shares are held by the owner, in addition, Bushmaster's revenues exceed Ruger's (a quoted company on the NYSE) and they do this running a lower overhead, their business model is excellent. My point was that they had the steam to finish this and they chose to buy their way out which will more than likely result in repercussions for others in the industry.
HFG



HFG,

If you think this is going to send any sort of signal that wasn't already there, you're sadly mistaken and need to wake up to the realities of the business of litigation. Its widely known and accepted among lawyers that many meritless claims against deep pocket clients are only filed for their insurance & settlement value. This is nothing new; plaintiff's firms use this tactic all the time against all sorts of companies; gun manufacturers are just the latest. A few years ago I was involved in a car accident where it was completely known to my insurer the plaintiff was faking his injuries (they had him on video lifting weights at the gym...and this guy was bigger than Mike Tyson). Yet the insurance company settled and gave the guy about $35k just to be rid of the suit and minimize any further exposure. That is just how business is done in the world of law and insurance.

Additionally, you don't seem to have any idea of the potential downside for Bushmaster here. On a claim for negligent marketing they may very well lose and could be liable for tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Litigation is not cheap and success is never guaranteed. Juries can be very unpredictable and in a case of multiple murders, a jury could be very sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Here the downside was far more menacing than the measley payout their insurance company gave. This was a business decision, not a policy decision, and it won't compromise Bushmaster's ability to litigate these sorts of claims in the future, nor will it compromise any other gun manufacturer's ability to litigate claims in the future.

As to their ownership, its really immaterial who owns Bushmasters shares. The fact is, they're a profit making venture, not a non-profit vehicle for pushing an agenda or a shift in public policy. Its easy to sit behind your computer and play Monday morning quarterback with someone else's business and someone else's money. Until its your money on the line - your company, your employees, your creditors, and your good name at risk, its really disingenuous to say what they should or shouldn't have done without all the facts.



Your opinion was not shared by any of the manufacturers I spoke with today who brought this up in conversation; I offered mine and you have offered yours, that's all. Your opinion is colored by your business, mine is colored by mine and by the govt $'s we pay out for the products we need.
HFG



HFG, in this case I would have to side with Shaggy. BM did what they needed to do in order to move on. They did not set any precedence or sell anyone out. Ruger and the old S&W did, not BM. I think there is also one key point you may be missing, BM's insurance covered this litigation, they get a say in what happens. In this case, they went for the pay out because their was nothing to really be gain by going to court. Even if BM had won the case they would not have done anything to stop future law suits.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:54:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By HipFiredGun:

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By HipFiredGun:
They might not set a 'legal' precedent but they send a signal to trial lawyers that they can extort money from companies legitimately and legally going about their business because the potential cost of fighting these lawsuits is so great. All this does is push up insurance premiums for other manufacturers.

Bushmaster is not a public company, it's a closed company where the majority of shares are held by the owner, in addition, Bushmaster's revenues exceed Ruger's (a quoted company on the NYSE) and they do this running a lower overhead, their business model is excellent. My point was that they had the steam to finish this and they chose to buy their way out which will more than likely result in repercussions for others in the industry.
HFG



HFG,

If you think this is going to send any sort of signal that wasn't already there, you're sadly mistaken and need to wake up to the realities of the business of litigation. Its widely known and accepted among lawyers that many meritless claims against deep pocket clients are only filed for their insurance & settlement value. This is nothing new; plaintiff's firms use this tactic all the time against all sorts of companies; gun manufacturers are just the latest. A few years ago I was involved in a car accident where it was completely known to my insurer the plaintiff was faking his injuries (they had him on video lifting weights at the gym...and this guy was bigger than Mike Tyson). Yet the insurance company settled and gave the guy about $35k just to be rid of the suit and minimize any further exposure. That is just how business is done in the world of law and insurance.

Additionally, you don't seem to have any idea of the potential downside for Bushmaster here. On a claim for negligent marketing they may very well lose and could be liable for tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Litigation is not cheap and success is never guaranteed. Juries can be very unpredictable and in a case of multiple murders, a jury could be very sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Here the downside was far more menacing than the measley payout their insurance company gave. This was a business decision, not a policy decision, and it won't compromise Bushmaster's ability to litigate these sorts of claims in the future, nor will it compromise any other gun manufacturer's ability to litigate claims in the future.

As to their ownership, its really immaterial who owns Bushmasters shares. The fact is, they're a profit making venture, not a non-profit vehicle for pushing an agenda or a shift in public policy. Its easy to sit behind your computer and play Monday morning quarterback with someone else's business and someone else's money. Until its your money on the line - your company, your employees, your creditors, and your good name at risk, its really disingenuous to say what they should or shouldn't have done without all the facts.



Your opinion was not shared by any of the manufacturers I spoke with today who brought this up in conversation; I offered mine and you have offered yours, that's all. Your opinion is colored by your business, mine is colored by mine and by the govt $'s we pay out for the products we need.
HFG



HFG -

My opinion is colored by what I've seen and encountered as a practicing attorney. I don't know what kind of manufacturers you were talking to, but generally speaking, a manufacturer is not an attorney and doesn't defend their own cases; that's why they hire lawyers in the first place. I'm sure they have their opinions of how things should happen in an ideal world, but those opinions can change drastically once they are cognizant of the legal and financial ramifications of acting in accordance with those opinions rather than qualified legal advice. Again, an opinion when you have nothing to lose is one thing, but opinions change when its your money, your business, and your ass on the line. If you have specific examples or evidence of how such a settlement could compromise another gun manufacturer, I'd certainly like to hear it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:54:35 PM EST
So........is Pontiac and GM being sued for manfacturing the automobile utilized in the spree?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:10:17 PM EST
I just bought a Bushmaster Lower this summer and last week I ordered about $50.00 in parts from Bushmaster I find this very disturbing .I will go to there sight and here there side of the story before I cast judgment .They got some splaining to do.


He drove a Chevy why are they not being sued it was as much a tool in there killing spree as the STOLEN gun!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:11:31 PM EST
How ever way the settlement went I dont consider Bushmaster a sell out.If this situation cused them to rethink civillian sales or change design dimensions in an effort to kiss ass I would say that is selling out but they have not.Just because the people who insure them settled dosent mean they pay anything but maybe higher insurance premiums.They have not removed rifles from manufacture to us,they have not changed the design,they support this site and our right to bear arms...giving in to an insurance claim is not selling shooters down the river that is only done when pressure is enough to change a design,product line or second ammendment support and we know who that company is so lets get off Bushmasters ass and prepare for them to offer normal ARs to us once more that were only available for the last 10 years to law enforcement.I dont see a certain other company going back to the original design specs as far as parts and design and they probably never will.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:03:58 PM EST
I would like to know what the NRA and the GOA think about this ?If anyone here's from either group please post .They will know more about the ins and outs of the deal and could give us some true prespective on the issue .
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:26:47 PM EST
While it says "Bushmaster" agreed, it may have been the company that insures Bushmaster. If it was, they could care less what Bushmaster wants to do. All they care about is what the cheapest way out for their insurance company butts is. Even if Bushmaster said no, the insurance company would say yes, cause $500,000 is certain. A trial could result in millions.

This is just like your auto insurance. You are involved in a questionable (at least the bean counters at the insurance company see it that way) accident and they're gonna pay off regardless of what you want. You're up shit creek and they don't care. You're just a little nobody who doesn't mean crap to them. It's all about the almighty buck.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:01:03 PM EST
gee, i can't believe bushmaster "sold out".....
they should have stood their ground, and been driven into bankrupcy by legal fees fighting this.
fuck the dozens (hundreds?) of people who work for Bushmaster...i'm sure they're more than willing to sacrifice a paycheck for their 2nd amendment rights, right?
yep, they should have held out till they were put out of business....that will show the Anti's not to mess with us, wont it!!!!

sometimes i wish i was face-to-face with some of you people so i could bitch-slap you.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:18:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 7:22:40 PM EST by model927]
AMEN on the bitch slapI agree I would rather still be the consumer of a great product and pro gun buisness than to have it be bankrupt and people out of jobs,the big picture is we know one thing every one has a price and they were bought for 500,000 whats that say about them.We have a pro customer,pro 2cnd ammendment company with the consumer at the top of their list....lets show a little loyalty here,how many of us would want to not have a job especially with a family who counts on you or right to own a legal product and in the long run spend more of the companys wealth when you can just shut them up for half a million,HELL shooters and Bushmaster got a bargain andf so did the insurance company,when you have liability insurance to protect you its the insurance company who decides what it is willing to pay out to save its ass and that is what happened,those of you who hate Bushmaster now give me your rifles Ill pay a fair price and you can go get a colt now,Im sure that companys values will suit you all just fine.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 2:22:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 2:25:57 AM EST by onrope1971]

Originally Posted By chp5:

Originally Posted By magneto:
The last thing that we need in the White House is a trial lawyer!



Amen to that!! Edwards is a personal injury attorney!



He is one of the reasons our medical insurance is so high and doctors have to pay so much for malpractice insurance.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 2:34:11 AM EST
Just curious, what would you concider "reasonable" for say a doctors mistake costing you a lifetime of care for your now vegitative son or daughter.

He's $25,000 sorry about that.

seems to me if the doctors quit making mistakes (cutting off the wrong leg.etc) they wouldn't have to pay through the nose.
being as they do, time to pay the piper.


Chris

<­center>

Originally Posted By Southrnshooter:
Just fyi, Edwards has killed the medical profession in North Carolina. We have doctors leaving the state at record rates. One neurologist left because his insurance went up 500% in one year. All this thanks to Edwards and his malpractice claims.

Don't get me wrong, if the doctor is at fault, there should be some remedy. But the payout should be reasonable, and not finance a family for the next century!!!

I wonder what Edwards answer to health care would be? Hopefully he won't get the chance to tell us....

Link Posted: 9/10/2004 2:42:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 2:56:30 AM EST by onrope1971]
These type of lawsuits have got to stop. Next thing you know I get my butt sued because some punk kid hooked on crack steals my SUV parked at the jiffy mart and runs over a mother pushing two twins in the baby stroller. I get sued cause I modified the engine of the SUV with better performing parts that make it less economical but more power. The punk kid hooked on crack says that the he couldn't see that mother and two twins cause the truck he stole sat up two high off the ground. And the engine was two powerful to stop in time. Lawyer/Judge say that there was not any practical use for such a vehicle on ordinary streets.


I really hate layers and insurance companies!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top