Maura Healey joins effort to reverse ruling in Remington rifle class action suit

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
27,648
Likes
19,911
Feedback: 121 / 0 / 0
BOSTON - Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced Friday that she had joined 13 other attorneys general in filing a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals that seeks to reverse a recent ruling in a case involving Remington Arms and defective firearms.

The amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief was filed Friday in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. It seeks to overturn a ruling from March involving a class action suit filed against Remington Arms that claimed the company sold as many as 7.5 million firearms with defective triggers.

The original suit charged that because of defects, the guns were prone to fire accidentally without the triggering being depressed, and that Remington officials knew this for decades and did nothing about it.

cont...

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/07/mass_ag_maura_healey_joins_eff.html#incart_river_home
 
If Remington is making the trigger fix for any owners of the firearms then how is this case still a thing? What is there to reverse? I'm guessing it's a money grab.
 
If Remington is making the trigger fix for any owners of the firearms then how is this case still a thing? What is there to reverse? I'm guessing it's a money grab.

Not saying I agree with any/all of this, but here's the thinking I'm guessing is behind the continued legal action:

1. They want to punish Remington by costing them more money than just the recall/fix because they were "bad"

2. If someone out there has one of their guns with the defective trigger and is injured/killed because of it before it can be fixed under the recall, the settlement may prevent them going after Remington for damages caused by the defective product

3. I'm pretty sure it's mostly about "hey, here's a way we can try to drive one of those nasty evil gun companies out of business through legal financial ruin. Everyone pile on!"


To me, only number 2 could possibly be valid, but I'm not sure if that's even a valid concern at all.

Give my guessed reason number 3, I'm not surprised that Maura jumped on the bandwagon. She'll probably drag this out every chance she gets to show her supporters that she's all about "consumer protection" and "safety" too.
 
Not saying I agree with any/all of this, but here's the thinking I'm guessing is behind the continued legal action:

1. They want to punish Remington by costing them more money than just the recall/fix because they were "bad"

2. If someone out there has one of their guns with the defective trigger and is injured/killed because of it before it can be fixed under the recall, the settlement may prevent them going after Remington for damages caused by the defective product

3. I'm pretty sure it's mostly about "hey, here's a way we can try to drive one of those nasty evil gun companies out of business through legal financial ruin. Everyone pile on!"


To me, only number 2 could possibly be valid, but I'm not sure if that's even a valid concern at all.

Give my guessed reason number 3, I'm not surprised that Maura jumped on the bandwagon. She'll probably drag this out every chance she gets to show her supporters that she's all about "consumer protection" and "safety" too.


It's #3. This is entirely about trying to drive a gunmaker out of business because, "gunz r bad, m'kay." Hopefully with Remington issuing the trigger fixes the court tells her to sit on it and spin.
 
Not saying I agree with any/all of this, but here's the thinking I'm guessing is behind the continued legal action:

1. They want to punish Remington by costing them more money than just the recall/fix because they were "bad"

2. If someone out there has one of their guns with the defective trigger and is injured/killed because of it before it can be fixed under the recall, the settlement may prevent them going after Remington for damages caused by the defective product

3. I'm pretty sure it's mostly about "hey, here's a way we can try to drive one of those nasty evil gun companies out of business through legal financial ruin. Everyone pile on!"


To me, only number 2 could possibly be valid, but I'm not sure if that's even a valid concern at all.

Give my guessed reason number 3, I'm not surprised that Maura jumped on the bandwagon. She'll probably drag this out every chance she gets to show her supporters that she's all about "consumer protection" and "safety" too.


and this would be bad because it can further reaching affects as in auto manufacturer recalls and most any other mechanical device manufactured and sold...they should be careful of what they wish for...
 
The fact that Remington is making a fix can be used against the company, as it could be construed as an admission there is a safety defect.
 
It used to be common for defendants to allow for quick certification of a class by counsel most likely to "work with them" on a settlement favorable to defense as long as class counsel got a nice chunk of change. I'd imagine that still happens, and happened here, as the settlement is basically the minimum Remington would have had to do in light of acknowledging the defect and will bar future lawsuits by those who don't opt out of the class.

It's actually a very appropriate place for intervention by AGs, but I would guess you would be hard pressed to find another class action where the AG took such a consumer friendly stance. I'm guessing "but gunz" are the only reason they got involved here.
 
Note the usual scam - people getting compensation for un-upgradeable guns get a $10 to $12 credit on a new Remington gun and the attorneys get cash.
 
I replaced the entire trigger group in my 11-87 because sometimes - but rarely - I could make it go off without pulling the trigger. This was with the trigger group out of the gun. But still.... Concerning enough. Ended up getting an upgraded "police" model which basically means it just has a larger feed button on the ramp to load shells.

The trigger group had other problems too and I think it was just wear related. Sometimes it would lock back when there were still shells in the tube as well. Gun is old and seen a lot of shells. I think I bought it like 18 or so years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that Remington is making a fix can be used against the company, as it could be construed as an admission there is a safety defect.

I think most of the firearms impacted are model 700 rifles which has a replaceable trigger group.
 
I'm no lawyer, but I see a problem with a company negotiating a settlement in good faith and then having the prosecution turn around for an appeal after it had been reached, No?
 
The fact that Remington is making a fix can be used against the company, as it could be construed as an admission there is a safety defect.

The fact that Remington is making a fix is only proof that a fix could be made if Remington testified that it wasn't feasible. A product improvement is not an admission of liability.
 
The fact that Remington is making a fix is only proof that a fix could be made if Remington testified that it wasn't feasible. A product improvement is not an admission of liability.


By its very definition, a fix is defacto proof of a flaw and distributing a remedy to that flaw is admission thereof. You don't "improve" a 55 year old trigger without some admission that there was a problem (there are internal documents identifying the flaw going back to the original design) so this is not a random "improvement" encompassed by standard product development.

That being said, the case has been settled. It would take something like the Ninth Circus to reopen such a case and even they would be careful to narrowly define such a move. This is all about the PR being "tough on guns" without any actual teeth: Make the Freedom Group / Cerberus lawyers appear in court a few more times just to piss them off.
 
By its very definition, a fix is defacto proof of a flaw and distributing a remedy to that flaw is admission thereof. You don't "improve" a 55 year old trigger without some admission that there was a problem (there are internal documents identifying the flaw going back to the original design) so this is not a random "improvement" encompassed by standard product development.

[h=1]Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures[/h]When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:

  • negligence;
  • culpable conduct;
  • a defect in a product or its design; or
  • a need for a warning or instruction.




But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.
Federal Rules of Evidence.

In court, this is inadmissible as evidence of a defect or that the manufacturer is negligent. The reason is it would discourage any product manufacturer from making improvements on a product.
 
Federal Rules of Evidence.

In court, this is inadmissible as evidence of a defect or that the manufacturer is negligent. The reason is it would discourage any product manufacturer from making improvements on a product.


What it does is discourage mfg's from taking ownership of the problem and correcting it. I don't care about evidentiary rules btw, I was working in reality: The trigger was defective from day one and Remington engineers knew it. Improvements are not responses to defects, they are adaptations to user conditions. Fixes are responses to defects. This was a fix. Of course at this point arguing semantics is superfluous and a complete waste of time.
 
Does this class action settlement bar any persons who do not exclude them from the class from ever bringing a personal injury case against Remington over this issue?
 
What it does is discourage mfg's from taking ownership of the problem and correcting it. I don't care about evidentiary rules btw, I was working in reality: The trigger was defective from day one and Remington engineers knew it. Improvements are not responses to defects, they are adaptations to user conditions. Fixes are responses to defects. This was a fix. Of course at this point arguing semantics is superfluous and a complete waste of time.

I agree with your thoughts on this. Also, if the engineers knew of the defect and did nothing, that can be used as evidence - not simply that they did fix it later.

Does this class action settlement bar any persons who do not exclude them from the class from ever bringing a personal injury case against Remington over this issue?

Honestly, I don't know much about class action law suits. I didn't take any classes that discussed them in any detail.
 
The fact that Remington is making a fix can be used against the company, as it could be construed as an admission there is a safety defect.

The "fix" was a settlement agreement. Part of the settlement agreement, which some opponents maligned, was that Remington ultimately did not have to publicly claim that the rifles were defective.

(From the joint press release:: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ment-by-remington-arms-company-300105305.html)
The underlying lawsuits alleged that certain Remington bolt-action rifles contained defectively designed trigger mechanisms and could result in accidental discharges without a trigger pull and sought economic losses for the alleged diminished value of the rifles, along with other equitable relief. The suits did not seek damages for personal injuries or property damage, and the settlement does not resolve or affect any such claims. Remington believes that the trigger mechanisms are safe and has vigorously defended both lawsuits. However, to avoid the uncertainties and expense of protracted litigation, and to ensure continued satisfaction for its valuable customers, Remington has agreed to settle and to offer to retrofit certain firearms.

A month before the court approved the settlement, the judge rejected the settlement agreement on grounds that it was too lenient on Remington, that too few owners were submitting firearms to be retrofitted and that there were insufficient financial penalties. (https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/remington-settlement-deadly-rifle-defect-too-lenient/) [Yes, I am aware that this links to website that has an antigun angle] Later on, when the court approved a later version of the settlement, the judge indicated that at least some guns being repaired was a positive outcome. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/14/judge-approves-landmark-remington-rifle-settlement.html)
 
She's not trying the case, she sent an amicus brief. BFD. Gosh. You listen to the old Jay Seculow broadcasts and that guy sent an amicus brief to a court about every 4 hours, for crying out loud.
 
She's not trying the case, she sent an amicus brief. BFD. Gosh. You listen to the old Jay Seculow broadcasts and that guy sent an amicus brief to a court about every 4 hours, for crying out loud.
For those that don't know:

Amicus briefs are legal documents filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants with a strong interest in the subject matter. The briefs advise the court of relevant, additional information or arguments that the court might wish to consider.
 
Back
Top Bottom