Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter, Jessica Ghawi, was one of 12 people killed in the July 2012 attack, had sued four online retailers that provided bullets, gun magazines and body armor alleged to have been used in the shooting. They accused the retailers of selling the items without concern about the mental fitness of the buyer or the items' intended use.
The retailers "established and operated businesses which attracted and catered to dangerous persons such as (James) Holmes," the couple's complaint argued, "and yet they failed ... to reasonably screen to prevent such dangerous people from obtaining arms."
In an order issued Friday, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch ruled state and federal laws protect ammunition sellers from such lawsuits. He dismissed the case.
In an order issued Friday, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch ruled state and federal laws protect ammunition sellers from such lawsuits. He dismissed the case.
oohooo! I'm a dangerous poison because I buy ammunition. These people really need to find a different way to settle their grief than stupid lawsuits.
Gun and ammunition companies must be protected from frivolous lawsuits.
we depend on those companies for national security.
Sad, someone sells tools of mass murder, and a bunch of people are murdered. What did they expect.
Does SCOTUS even take those in crayon?You should file an Amicus brief.
It would be the equivalent of being able to sue Exxon because a drunk driver killer a loved one of yours.
WRONG.
Gasoline has a legitimate purpose in powering vehicles to get you from point A to B, bullets are designed to maim and murder the innocent.
WRONG.
Gasoline has a legitimate purpose in powering vehicles to get you from point A to B, bullets are designed to be fired from guns to maim and murder the innocent.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27802303/parents-theater-shooting-victim-lose-lawsuit-against-ammo
Woohooo! I'm a dangerous poison because I buy ammunition. These people really need to find a different way to settle their grief than stupid lawsuits.
WRONG.
Gasoline has a legitimate purpose in powering vehicles to get you from point A to B, bullets are designed to be fired from guns to maim and murder the innocent.
WRONG.
Gasoline has a legitimate purpose in powering vehicles to get you from point A to B, bullets are designed to be fired from guns to maim and murder the innocent.
Ford will sell me a car without concern about my mental health or my intended use.
WRONG.
Gasoline has a legitimate purpose in powering vehicles to get you from point A to B, bullets are designed to be fired from guns to maim and murder the innocent.
The courts couldn't possibly rule any other way. Otherwise a guy with a drinking problem and purchases a car from a dealership and kills someone the precedent will have been set for the dealership to be liable.
Just about anything can be used as a weapon, there is no possible way that any business can effectively weed out the crazies. Imagine home depot being sued because some asshole bought a tire iron from them and then beat the fuck out of someone with it. It's just as absurd as blaming ammo/gun dealers. They sell legal products, their only requirement is to ensure that person is legally able to purchase said items. The rest is on the .gov, as it should be.
Hell, how in the hell would they have vetted the guy anyway? It's not like they can acquire medical records or anything because of those pesky privacy laws.
Vicarious liability may come back to haunt leasing
Jim Henry
Automotive News | September 28, 2011 - 11:05 am EST
Vicarious liability may be on its way back.
That's the legal doctrine that enables a crash victim to collect damages from the owner of a vehicle that has been rented or leased. For a rental or lease car, the legal owner is the rental company or the lessor, usually a lender.
Auto leasing companies have been protected from vicarious liability by law since 2005. Now, though, the American Financial Services Association, a Washington trade group that includes major auto lenders, is worried that the limits on vicarious liability could come off, pushing lenders to pull back from auto leasing.
The group sent a letter this month to the leadership of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asking congressmen not to overturn a law that protects auto leasing companies from vicarious liability.
"Changes are being considered," said Bill Himpler, AFSA executive vice president. "We are probably looking at an all-or-nothing outcome. I don't imagine there's a lot of middle ground on this issue," he said.
AFSA members include Ford Motor Credit Co., Toyota Financial Services, World Omni Financial Corp., Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., Ally Financial, American Honda Finance Corp., Volkswagen Credit, Capital One Auto Finance, Wells Fargo Dealer Services, GM Financial, Mercedes-Benz Financial Services U.S.A., TD Auto Finance and Chase Auto Finance.
In addition, there's a separate effort by a trial lawyers' group, the Washington-based Center for Constitutional Litigation, to get an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. The group is seeking to overturn a Florida Supreme Court decision that upheld protection against vicarious liability for the leasing and rent-a-car industries.
How it all began
According to critics of vicarious liability, the original intent dates back to the earliest automobiles, when only the very rich owned cars and most were chauffeur-driven.
Prior to 2005, courts in several states said that a leasing company could be held liable for damages because it owns the car, even if the leasing company had no control over who drove the car or how they drove it.
In 2002, a jury in Providence, R.I., socked Chase Auto Finance and its insurance company, American International Group Inc., with a $28 million verdict because Chase owned the title to a leased car that paralyzed a woman in a 1998 accident.
After the verdict, several auto lenders quit leasing in Rhode Island, New York and a handful of other states to avoid vicarious liability. In 2005, Congress passed an amendment that was part of a giant highway funding bill, which in effect protected leasing companies from vicarious liability.
Now the issue is back -- once again as part of a giant highway bill. AFSA's Himpler said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and the Obama Administration appear to favor getting rid of the limits on vicarious liability.
Himpler said U.S. Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., would likely defend the existing rule. It's often called the Graves Law because the Missouri congressman originally co-sponsored it.
Said AFSA in its letter: "Prior to the enactment of the Graves Law, unfair 'liability without fault' laws in some states drove many small companies out of business and exposed countless more to multimillion-dollar claims for accidents in which the rental or leasing company or company employees had absolutely no role.
The prohibitive cost of insurance forced some companies to avoid leasing vehicles in certain states, robbing businesses and consumers of an affordable alternative to purchasing."
Saw this noted somewhere else:
Court also held that defendants Lucky Gunner and the Sportsmans Guide are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs.