Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim's Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturer

[Gingersnap]

Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim's Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers
Posted: 05/22/2015 10:53 am EDT Updated: 4 hours ago

Rachel Maddow debuted an Outrage-O-Meter on her show Thursday night, and quickly put it to the test with a story about the ongoing trial of James Holmes, who opened fire in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in July 2012.

Maddow opened her show with heart-rending footage of the Aurora trial. She highlighted the testimony of Brenton Lowak, whose friend Jessica Ghawi -- a 24-year-old aspiring sports reporter -- died in the shooting.

Here’s the part that set off the Outrage-O-Meter: Jessica's parents have been ordered by a judge in Colorado to pay $220,000 to the gun manufacturers who sold Holmes his weapon.

The parents unsuccessfully sued the retailers who made the firearm that killed their daughter. Colorado state law requires that plaintiffs who sue the manufacturers of gun products pay the companies' legal fees if they lose.

“That’s not a typo,” Maddow said, adding, “The mother and father of the victim who died in the Aurora mass shooting have just been ordered to pay a quarter-million dollars to the gun makers who sold the bullets that were used in the Aurora mass shooting -- the parents of the girl who was killed.”

“If you, for whatever reason, sue anyone having to do with the making of guns and if, for any reason, you lose that lawsuit, you’re going to have to pay -- big,” Maddow continued. “It only goes that one direction, too.”

Ghawi's parents are appealing the decision.

This is interesting. While I feel for the parents, suing the manufacturer of a perfectly working product because that product was grossly misused, is pretty much wrong.

The "loser pays" concept is very common in Europe. It has pros and cons. On the pro side, it drastically cuts down on frivolous lawsuits. On the con side, some legitimate suits never make it to court because the financial downside is so great.

I have sympathy for them because of their loss, the suit itself was nuts and they had to have legal advice warning them about the potential outcome.

Huff Po

[Celeste Chalfonte]

This is interesting. While I feel for the parents, suing the manufacturer of a perfectly working product because that product was grossly misused, is pretty much wrong.

The "loser pays" concept is very common in Europe. It has pros and cons. On the pro side, it drastically cuts down on frivolous lawsuits. On the con side, some legitimate suits never make it to court because the financial downside is so great.

I have sympathy for them because of their loss, the suit itself was nuts and they had to have legal advice warning them about the potential outcome.

Huff Po

OTOH, if the legislation singles out one type of manufacturer and leaves all others vulnerable to the usual US rule that anyone can sue anyone for anything, that's not ok with me. Gun manufacturers should have no greater or lesser rights than any other business.

If they had sued a private person who supplied the gun or ammunition, that person would not share this special protection. Therefore, no one should have it, unless Colorado opts to go with loser pays in all cases.

[Gingersnap]

OTOH, if the legislation singles out one type of manufacturer and leaves all others vulnerable to the usual US rule that anyone can sue anyone for anything, that's not ok with me. Gun manufacturers should have no greater or lesser rights than any other business.

If they had sued a private person who supplied the gun or ammunition, that person would not share this special protection. Therefore, no one should have it, unless Colorado opts to go with loser pays in all cases.

I can't imagine we would go 'loser pays' in everything. It would decimate the legal industry out here.

I just don't "get" these types of lawsuits. In this case, the shooter knew what the guns would do and they did what the manufacturer said they would do. End of story. They functioned.

Suing for the end game seems completely wrong. I could easily kill my husband with his own baseball bat but the manufacture would not be at fault.

[phillygirl]

OTOH, if the legislation singles out one type of manufacturer and leaves all others vulnerable to the usual US rule that anyone can sue anyone for anything, that's not ok with me. Gun manufacturers should have no greater or lesser rights than any other business.

If they had sued a private person who supplied the gun or ammunition, that person would not share this special protection. Therefore, no one should have it, unless Colorado opts to go with loser pays in all cases.

I'll have to mull this over. Your point was one that struck me immediately. However, the gun industry is a huge target for frivolous lawsuits and there is a certain issue of 2nd amendment. If people try to put the gun manufacturers out of business then we have some constitutional implications.

But your point is well taken and it had me scratching my head a bit as well.

[RobJohnson]

It sound like Jessica's parents were trying to turn her unfortunate death into a winning lottery ticket.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I'll have to mull this over. Your point was one that struck me immediately. However, the gun industry is a huge target for frivolous lawsuits and there is a certain issue of 2nd amendment. If people try to put the gun manufacturers out of business then we have some constitutional implications.

But your point is well taken and it had me scratching my head a bit as well.

Employers are a huge target for frivolous workers' comp claims. Celebrities are huge targets of frivolous paternity, alimony and/or child support suits. Auto insurance companies are huge targets of frivolous bodily injury claims. Pharmaceutical companies are huge targets of frivolous products liability claims. Every type of lawsuit could be frivolous. There are remedies for frivolous lawsuits. If they're inadequate, we need to address that. We do not need to single out one type of business, individual or organization to be immune from lawsuits. That way lies an even bigger mess.

[scott]

Employers are a huge target for frivolous workers' comp claims. Celebrities are huge targets of frivolous paternity, alimony and/or child support suits. Auto insurance companies are huge targets of frivolous bodily injury claims. Pharmaceutical companies are huge targets of frivolous products liability claims. Every type of lawsuit could be frivolous. There are remedies for frivolous lawsuits. If they're inadequate, we need to address that. We do not need to single out one type of business, individual or organization to be immune from lawsuits. That way lies an even bigger mess.

True but that would mess with the single payer plans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314758/

[phillygirl]

Employers are a huge target for frivolous workers' comp claims. Celebrities are huge targets of frivolous paternity, alimony and/or child support suits. Auto insurance companies are huge targets of frivolous bodily injury claims. Pharmaceutical companies are huge targets of frivolous products liability claims. Every type of lawsuit could be frivolous. There are remedies for frivolous lawsuits. If they're inadequate, we need to address that. We do not need to single out one type of business, individual or organization to be immune from lawsuits. That way lies an even bigger mess.

But none of them have Second Amendment implications.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

True but that would mess with the single payer plans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314758/

What does sovereign immunity have to do with it? Unless there was something about protecting one type of corporation, individual or organization (other than the government, which is and always has been a separate and distinct area of law), your question is irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody in the case under discussion tried to sue the city of Aurora or the State of Colorado for allowing gun ownership or sales, AFAIK. If you were trying to be cute and lumping government in under "organization," I'll give you credit for intentionally misinterpreting my statement, rather than being ignorantly literal.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

But none of them have Second Amendment implications.

OK, so you want to develop an area of law comparable to that relating to defamation and the First Amendment. That has taken us over 200 years and it's STILL a quagmire. Good luck with it.

[phillygirl]

OK, so you want to develop an area of law comparable to that relating to defamation and the First Amendment. That has taken us over 200 years and it's STILL a quagmire. Good luck with it.

Yes, potentially.

And I'm not necessarily opposed to the European loser pays philosophy. I realize this will severely limit the personal injury field of law...

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Yes, potentially.

And I'm not necessarily opposed to the European loser pays philosophy. I realize this will severely limit the personal injury field of law...

The thing is, personal injury law already has numerous (and in some cases, severe) limitations. There are remedies for frivolous and/or vexatious litigation. The definition of "frivolous" changes with changes in knowledge, technical possibility, and other factors. One hundred years ago, suing a dentist for transmitting tetanus via improperly sterilized instruments was unheard-of. Today, it would violate the standard of care to re-use a needle under most if not all circumstances, regardless of sterilization. What constitutes negligence in almost any medical field, in workplace safety, in manufacturing generally, in automotive safety, and many other areas not presently coming to mind before my first cup of coffee, has changed radically in my lifetime. Somehow, the law managed to develop without, generally, the need for specific immunities for specific industries or corporations. And where needed, what amount to immunities were developed carefully and thoughtfully over time. A perfect example, and one possibly applicable to and already available to gun manufacturers, is the "inherently dangerous but highly valuable" product or activity doctrine. That concept should have been allowed to control in medical malpractice cases, rather than misguided and unnecessary "tort reform" that limited the recovery of legitimately and catastrophically injured victims of medical malpractice. I oppose carving out yet another misbegotten exception to the rules of negligence and reasonableness.

[Newman]

I'll have to mull this over. Your point was one that struck me immediately. However, the gun industry is a huge target for frivolous lawsuits and there is a certain issue of 2nd amendment. If people try to put the gun manufacturers out of business then we have some constitutional implications.

But your point is well taken and it had me scratching my head a bit as well.

Whatever the particulars, surely the attorneys for the parents knew this going in. If the parents were not informed they should sue their lawyers.

Otherwise I don't see a problem.

[scott]

What does sovereign immunity have to do with it? Unless there was something about protecting one type of corporation, individual or organization (other than the government, which is and always has been a separate and distinct area of law), your question is irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody in the case under discussion tried to sue the city of Aurora or the State of Colorado for allowing gun ownership or sales, AFAIK. If you were trying to be cute and lumping government in under "organization," I'll give you credit for intentionally misinterpreting my statement, rather than being ignorantly literal.

Healthcare businesses have reincorporated themselves into GSEs, "non-profits" and "public-private partnerships" and all have sought to get sovereign immunity status. In most cases they have been successful.

[scott]

Yes, potentially.

And I'm not necessarily opposed to the European loser pays philosophy. I realize this will severely limit the personal injury field of law...

I would like loser pays to apply to the government. If I get audited and I have to defend against a money laundering a tax evasion set of charges I should be compensated for having to pay to mount a defense against those allegations. If it's a simple matter of miscalculation of taxes owed then the case should be presented as such.

But the first thing thrown out by the all-powerful government isn't "we think you owe more than you paid," it's "you are stealing from us and we can put you in jail."