Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington

[grayfox]

What the case in Connecticut comes down to is whether or not it can be proven that Remington "marketed and sold a weapon to an individual while knowing there was a reasonable risk that that individual was likely to, and did, cause harm to others with that weapon" ("Negligent Entrustment"). A very difficult uphill battle, to be sure, ...

maybe so, but an argument like that should be doomed to fail, since in this particular case, the "individual" who bought it was the mom. The son, who was the user of it, both murdered his mom and then went on his school rampage.

[Preface, not a lawyer]...
Here's a definition and discussion of negligent entrustment, from
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona...ntrustment, and West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008.

Negligent Entrustment
The act of leaving an object, such as an automobile or firearm, with another whom the lender knows or should know could use the object to harm others due to such factors as youth or inexperience.
Negligent entrustment claims arise when an unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver causes damages while driving a motor vehicle owned by someone else. A party injured by such a driver must generally prove five components of this tort: (1) that the owner entrusted the vehicle to the driver; (2) that the driver was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; (3) that the owner knew or should have known that the driver was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; (4) that the driver was negligent in the operation of the vehicle; and (5) that the driver's Negligence resulted in damages (Amaya v. Potter, 94 S.W.3d 856 [Tex. App. 2002]).

So in this case, the "owner" was his mom, Remington was not the owner and could not know what, if any, uses the purchaser might decide to do. For that matter nothing in such a purchase implies any use at all, aside from possession and storage in an owner's premises (ie, I think this is "quiet enjoyment" or something like that). As to #1, the mom certainly did not entrust the AR to the son... but she is deceased and cannot testify; however I'll wager that there's no evidence of it in any case. Leaving "unlocked" is not entrustment, esp if the son is not a minor. As to #2, if the State, in this case Connecticut, has not officially determined/documented whether the son was incompetent, etc, then this point will also be difficult to prove -- remember they need to prove that state of incompetence existed at the time of the crime. As to #3, the "driver", ie, user, was a relative of the owner and there is no way that a vendor such as Remington could know anything at all about such a relative, let alone any competence, sanity, knowledge training or anything else. The owner of the AR might know that, but plaintiffs would have to prove that fact... of course she was murdered by the son so that's going to be hard.
So I see 3 of the 5, the first 3 of those 5, as being difficult if not totally failed in attempting to prove... so again, the plaintiffs should have no case and it should be dismissed. We're talking now about the elements of tort law, and I'm not a lawyer, but it seems evident that there is no real case as a matter of this tort, for them to have.
On the other hand if this is a political ploy then of course rule of law is kicked to the curb and that's the only reason I see that this case is going forward.


If anything, and I mean Anything, the parents should be suing the mom's estate...
O, that entity doesn't have deep pockets, so that rules it out as well!!!