Beerball Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 help me understand this without blasting Maddow or turning this into something that will need to move to PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 At the end of the article it says "plaintiff pays the defense attorney fee if they lose but it only goes that one way" or something to that effect. Well, if the plaintiff doesn't lose (if they get a verdict) the plaintiff's attorney fee is paid as per the contingency fee agreement between the plaintiff and their chosen attorney (usually 33.33% of the recovery). Apparently CO wants litigants to make sure their lawsuits have merit and imposes a "pay to play" rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I'd imagine this is exactly the kind of case this law was implemented to address. Manufacturing a gun doesn't make one liable to the victim for crimes committed by a 3rd party using that gun anymore than Exxon is liable for the acts of an arsonist who used their gas to start a fire. Unless they can show the harm was caused by some design flaw or wrongful act of the manufacturer there is no action at law. As such, most of these cases are likely to be baseless and could both act as a drain on the court system and serve as a vehicle for activists to hit gun manufacturers in the wallet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I'd imagine this is exactly the kind of case this law was implemented to address. Manufacturing a gun doesn't make one liable to the victim for crimes committed by a 3rd party using that gun anymore than Exxon is liable for the acts of an arsonist who used their gas to start a fire. Unless they can show the harm was caused by some design flaw or wrongful act of the manufacturer there is no action at law. As such, most of these cases are likely to be baseless and could both act as a drain on the court system and serve as a vehicle for activists to hit gun manufacturers in the wallet. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I love me some Rachel Maddow. I'm also very pro-gun control. But I also cannot stand stupid lawsuits. Rob's Exxon analogy nails it, as far as I'm concerned. This one's tough because of the connection to the heinous mass murder. But my girl is way off on this one, I'm afraid. The law, in my opinion, is a good one. I'm sure they knew the consequences they'd meet in a loss when they decided to file suit. They should get some assistance from whatever idiots talked them into doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I'd imagine this is exactly the kind of case this law was implemented to address. Manufacturing a gun doesn't make one liable to the victim for crimes committed by a 3rd party using that gun anymore than Exxon is liable for the acts of an arsonist who used their gas to start a fire. Unless they can show the harm was caused by some design flaw or wrongful act of the manufacturer there is no action at law. As such, most of these cases are likely to be baseless and could both act as a drain on the court system and serve as a vehicle for activists to hit gun manufacturers in the wallet. Very well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 At the end of the article it says "plaintiff pays the defense attorney fee if they lose but it only goes that one way" or something to that effect. Well, if the plaintiff doesn't lose (if they get a verdict) the plaintiff's attorney fee is paid as per the contingency fee agreement between the plaintiff and their chosen attorney (usually 33.33% of the recovery). Apparently CO wants litigants to make sure their lawsuits have merit and imposes a "pay to play" rule.Seems to me that the law is specific to gun manufacturers, or do I have that wrong? Curious as to whether the same would be the case if someone sued for malpractice & lost. I suppose that's my main issue here. Just because someone loses a lawsuit it doesn't mean the suit was frivolous. This law doesn't seem to leave any discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 One other thought, isn't "blame" sometimes divided up between different parties? What if a gun manufacturer was found to be 50% at fault, would the parents be required to pay 50% of the fees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 One other thought, isn't "blame" sometimes divided up between different parties? What if a gun manufacturer was found to be 50% at fault, would the parents be required to pay 50% of the fees? Wouldn't that be a "win," for the plaintiffs, only yielding a smaller payout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Wouldn't that be a "win," for the plaintiffs, only yielding a smaller payout?Part win, part loss. How the hell am I supposed to know? I'm the idiot asking the idiotic questions here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) Apparently CO wants litigants to make sure their lawsuits have merit and imposes a "pay to play" rule. Why only for guns, though? And in this case, they were suing the retailer (i.e., the dealer, Lucky Gunner ), not the manufacturer. Seems pretty odd, but good luck to the dealer trying to collect on that judgement. They'd be crazy to initiate that kind of bad plublicity... http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2015/04/24/ammo-dealers-want-aurora-massacre-victims-parents-to-pay-their-legal-fees/ And then again, you have this 'enlightened' POV.... http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=16472 Edited May 23, 2015 by Lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Part win, part loss. How the hell am I supposed to know? I'm the idiot asking the idiotic questions here. For this .. you will get no objections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I did some looking around and I don't think this only pertains to gun manufacturers. The fact that Madow makes it sound that way is a pretty pathetic way to rile people up. Now if someone can point to where it pertains ONLY the gun manufacturers it's a pretty shortsighted statute. We need tort reform in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I did some looking around and I don't think this only pertains to gun manufacturers. The fact that Madow makes it sound that way is a pretty pathetic way to rile people up. Now if someone can point to where it pertains ONLY the gun manufacturers it's a pretty shortsighted statute. We need tort reform in this country. It is only for gun-related entities (manufacturers and dealers): http://nssf.org/share/PDF/Order_of_Dismissal_Phillips_v_Lucky_Gunner.pdf The Colorado General Assembly declared in 2000 the policy of the state that “civil actions in tort for any remedy arising from physical or emotional injury, physical damage, or death caused by the discharge of a firearm or ammunition shall be based only upon an actual defect in the design or manufacture of such firearm or ammunition or upon the commission of a violation of a state or federal statute or regulation and not upon any other theory of liability.” This policy was codified in C.R.S. § 13-21-504.5, which provides: 4 Case 1:14-cv-02822-RPM Document 45 Filed 03/27/15 (1) A person or other public or private entity may not bring an action in tort, other than a product liability action, against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer, importer, or dealer for any remedy arising from physical or emotional injury, physical damage, or death caused by the discharge of a firearm or ammunition. (2) In no type of action shall a firearms or ammunition manufacturer, importer, or dealer be held liable as a third party for the actions of another person. (3) The court, upon the filing of a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12 (b) of the Colorado rules of civil procedure, shall dismiss any action brought against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer, importer, or dealer that the court determines is prohibited under subsection (1) or (2) of this section. Upon dismissal pursuant to this subsection (3), the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, in addition to costs, to each defendant named in the action. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a firearms or ammunition manufacturer, importer, or dealer may be sued in tort for any damages proximately caused by an act of the manufacturer, importer, or dealer in violation of a state or federal statute or regulation. In any action brought pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (4), the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant violated the state or federal statute or regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I did some looking around and I don't think this only pertains to gun manufacturers. The fact that Madow makes it sound that way is a pretty pathetic way to rile people up. Now if someone can point to where it pertains ONLY the gun manufacturers it's a pretty shortsighted statute. We need tort reform in this country. You owe my gorgeous friend, Ms. Maddow, an apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I did some looking around and I don't think this only pertains to gun manufacturers. The fact that Madow makes it sound that way is a pretty pathetic way to rile people up. Now if someone can point to where it pertains ONLY the gun manufacturers it's a pretty shortsighted statute. We need tort reform in this country. That law probably is tort reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 That law probably is tort reform. A lot of good that law does the rest of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 A lot of good that law does the rest of the country. Try this one, then... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable fornegligence when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 To protect the right to bear arms we must protect those who allow us bears. Protecting gun dealers and manufacturers makes sense. There are a lot of laws out there that pertain to certain groups and protecting their ability to generate a product; look no further then agriculture and the water laws of California. This law is great and I support it and other laws like it. Loser pays, even if the plaintiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts