Quoted:
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.