2016 Postmortem

dsc

(53,410 posts)

133. actually if the machine was able to be designed not to have arms stuck in it

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:30 PM

Oct 2015

and the company refused to make the change, they might well be sued and might well lose that suit. In general, if something if forseeable (like the fact that if you send thousands and thousands of guns to gun stores right outside of Chicago those guns might kill kids in Chicago after being sold to gun runners) then yes your company can be sued.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

143 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does Bernie want to protect all corporations from liability suits? Or just the gun industry? [View all] DanTex Oct 2015 OP

How many bills have been introduced to protect various corporations from liability suits? Autumn Oct 2015 #1

That's my question. Does he generally favor corporations, or just corporations that either make DanTex Oct 2015 #3

You should be able to google the answers you seek Dan. I don't think that Autumn Oct 2015 #6

I'm guessing it's a little of both, but this is a complicated topic. A lot of the ALEC work is done DanTex Oct 2015 #8

If you really wanted to know you can look it up. eom Autumn Oct 2015 #11

I figured that supporters of Bernie's would have some kind of answer. DanTex Oct 2015 #14

I know the answer Dan, I googled it. Autumn Oct 2015 #18

And Camp Weathervane continues the lies and smears.... HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #2

Wrong. DanTex Oct 2015 #4

Fail. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #10

LOL. "Brings firearm manufacturers in line with other manufacturers". DanTex Oct 2015 #12

You continue to be dishonest. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #15

No, I'm stating exactly what the law stated. DanTex Oct 2015 #19

You are still incorrect. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #29

No, you are incorrect. Automakers don't have the same immunity. DanTex Oct 2015 #33

your link to the wiki page marym625 Oct 2015 #45

Yes, for some lawsuits, the rules for gun companies are still the same as for other industries. DanTex Oct 2015 #49

Again and again marym625 Oct 2015 #83

Yes, it was thrown out precisely because if unlawful misuse. Read the briefs. DanTex Oct 2015 #88

The summary judgment of the circuit court marym625 Oct 2015 #99

OK, I'll cut and paste for you. Page 32: DanTex Oct 2015 #102

That's on the cross claim. marym625 Oct 2015 #107

They decided that the claims were not allowed due to PLCAA. Not sure how this could be DanTex Oct 2015 #108

Name one case. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #55

Name one case where a lawsuit was thrown out of court against another manufacturer DanTex Oct 2015 #57

Name one case of liability for unlawfull misuse. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #67

You're claiming that unlawful misuse is grounds for dismissal outside the gun industry. DanTex Oct 2015 #69

You have yet to substantiate your OP. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #86

Of course I have. Read the text of the law, it only grants immunity to the gun industry. DanTex Oct 2015 #89

Yes, in order to eliminate the exemption.... HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #97

There was never any "exemption" until the NRA put one there. DanTex Oct 2015 #105

You still have not cited an instance of unlawfull misuse by another manufacturer. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #112

You have not cited a single instance where a lawsuit against anyone other than a gun DanTex Oct 2015 #113

As usual, you got nothing. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #115

Very strange that you claim that a legal exemption exists, but you can produce neither DanTex Oct 2015 #116

As a tort lawyer, I can assure you that you are totally wrong. Jim Lane Oct 2015 #131

If you're actually a tort lawyer, maybe you should read up on the cases that actually were filed DanTex Oct 2015 #134

I currently have no one on Ignore but you're testing the limits of that decision. Jim Lane Oct 2015 #135

Again, if you are actually a tort lawyer, then you know that unlawful misuse is not DanTex Oct 2015 #137

Enough of this baloney Jim Lane Oct 2015 #139

I couldn't agree more, enough with the baloney. DanTex Oct 2015 #140

Perhaps, the above discussion of "liabilty law", vis a vis, properly brought suits/improper verdicts 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2015 #100

So when a Toyota has a crash, while working as intended artislife Oct 2015 #37

Yes, you can sue Toyota. There's no specific immunity against that. DanTex Oct 2015 #43

Bernie pretty powerful according to you. nt artislife Oct 2015 #46

The NRA is powerful. Bernie is just one of many congressman that it swayed. DanTex Oct 2015 #50

They are not listening Tommy2Tone Oct 2015 #61

And you have a Fox contributer on H's side. artislife Oct 2015 #120

So if I poison someone's cat with Raid bugspray, S.C. Johnson & Son is liable? Scootaloo Oct 2015 #52

You can take them to court if you want, but you'll lose, DanTex Oct 2015 #53

How about if I get my arm stuck in a vending machine? Segea's gonna pay my bills, right? Scootaloo Oct 2015 #58

You can take them to court too if you want. It might be fun. DanTex Oct 2015 #60

Now, let's say I eagerly vote for a war that kills over a million and displaces millions more Scootaloo Oct 2015 #70

You can also change the subject when you're losing an argument. That's also probably fun. DanTex Oct 2015 #71

I wasn't aware we were arguing. I'm asking you questions. How about this one? Scootaloo Oct 2015 #74

We were. Now you know. DanTex Oct 2015 #75

How liable would I be, DanTex? Scootaloo Oct 2015 #78

Depends what the courts decide. Unless you're a gun manufacturer, the you don't have to worry DanTex Oct 2015 #82

From what you've been saying, there's nothing to worry about either way Scootaloo Oct 2015 #84

Probably not. I don't take you as the kind of person who would intentionally profit from DanTex Oct 2015 #90

actually if the machine was able to be designed not to have arms stuck in it dsc Oct 2015 #133

If I stab you with s fork, you can't sue the CanadaexPat Oct 2015 #65

Yes I can. But I'd lose, and be liable for the fork manufacturer's legal bills. DanTex Oct 2015 #73

Excellent post and good question. leftofcool Oct 2015 #5

Some faulty innuendo there, hoss! But - you expect yourcandidate to appeal to anyone who cares djean111 Oct 2015 #7

I'm not sure what Clinton Foundation smears have to do with Bernie's history of siding DanTex Oct 2015 #9

You are linking Bernie to gun violence. And attempting to paint Bernie as one who always sides djean111 Oct 2015 #13

Maybe he's trying to deflect attention from Clinton's vote to cluster-bomb children. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #16

That's because he sided with corporations on a legal immunity bill that stymied lawsuits DanTex Oct 2015 #17

It's linking Hillary to her approval of the use of cluster bombs on innocent victims Autumn Oct 2015 #23

OK, feel free to start an OP on that. Here I'm discussing Bernie's largesse towards the gun industry DanTex Oct 2015 #27

I am responding to your post Dan. That's the reason why OPs are posted Dan. To get responses Autumn Oct 2015 #34

Thanks for the response. I've heard the Clinton Foundation smears many times, and don't find DanTex Oct 2015 #35

You are so welcome Dan, and I really hate to burst your bubble but facts are not smears Dan. Autumn Oct 2015 #48

Let's not forget Kelvin Mace Oct 2015 #85

Please cite any case that's been thrown out because of this. marym625 Oct 2015 #20

The Smith and Wesson case would have been. The NRA really didn't like that one, and it DanTex Oct 2015 #24

You're using the Illinois case marym625 Oct 2015 #47

Yes, it was. It was thrown out because of the "unlawful misuse" clause. DanTex Oct 2015 #51

see reply 99 marym625 Oct 2015 #103

From the text of the decision. DanTex Oct 2015 #104

of those claims marym625 Oct 2015 #110

Yes, of those claims. Fine, not all the claims some of them. DanTex Oct 2015 #111

Dan being dan! Nt Logical Oct 2015 #21

Yep. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #31

What would be the basis for your lawsuit against the gun manufacturers? jeff47 Oct 2015 #22

Gee, the gun industry could have just hired you as their defense lawyer instead of going to DanTex Oct 2015 #26

It's so surprising you are utterly unable to answer the simplest of questions on this. jeff47 Oct 2015 #28

Well, because the lawsuits themselves are complex. The general gist DanTex Oct 2015 #30

"Complex" is a lame cop-out for "I got nothing" jeff47 Oct 2015 #36

No, it's the reality. The fact that the lawsuits were succeeding tells you everything you DanTex Oct 2015 #41

Yet you can't manage to point to even one success. jeff47 Oct 2015 #62

Yes, I can. Smith and Wesson. DanTex Oct 2015 #68

Hilarious is the people claiming victory in that lawsuit. jeff47 Oct 2015 #77

Weird, huh. The NRA went to all that effort all because of a "nothing" lawsuit. DanTex Oct 2015 #79

Then point to the something. jeff47 Oct 2015 #81

I just posted a huge list of things that Smith and Wesson changed. Do you want me to cut and paste DanTex Oct 2015 #91

No, you posted an article claiming there were changes. jeff47 Oct 2015 #92

I posted a link to the Clinton press release. OK, I'll cut and paste for you. DanTex Oct 2015 #93

He can't provide one example. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #56

LOL. You failed in one reply. Can't answer the questions. MindfulOne Oct 2015 #138

Thank you for opening my eyes and changing my mind whatchamacallit Oct 2015 #25

PERFECT! KPN Oct 2015 #32

Shameful silenttigersong Oct 2015 #38

Bernie's vote is part of the problem. Answer the question. leftofcool Oct 2015 #39

Good question. I think he was wrong to vote for these liability protections for gun makers. hrmjustin Oct 2015 #40

The immunity from lawsuits for the gun industry is stupid Gothmog Oct 2015 #42

What is the basis of their liability? jeff47 Oct 2015 #87

So little avenue for attack so we're back to this again...LOL eom NorthCarolina Oct 2015 #44

Customer stabbed with Happy Meal Android3.14 Oct 2015 #54

It's downright comical. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #63

. Capt. Obvious Oct 2015 #64

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service Capt. Obvious Oct 2015 #94

Rhetoric, it's not for everyone Android3.14 Oct 2015 #114

This is why the OP was created Oilwellian Oct 2015 #124

+1 beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #125

Indeed Capt. Obvious Oct 2015 #130

How nice that you reduce guns deaths to Happy Meals leftofcool Oct 2015 #142

I can't hear you with all the echoes coming from the cave Android3.14 Oct 2015 #143

The nuclear power industry has similar protection. CanadaexPat Oct 2015 #59

And small aircraft Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #129

Just the gun industry. zappaman Oct 2015 #66

How many Republicans and Republican Lites INdemo Oct 2015 #72

I've noticed a lot of people trying to change the subject on this OP. Wonder why that is? DanTex Oct 2015 #76

Possibly because it's a dead horse Armstead Oct 2015 #95

Interesting that he singled out the gun industry for immunity. It's actually nothing like the DanTex Oct 2015 #96

It was a BS OP in the first place. INdemo Oct 2015 #109

Interesting question Dan, does cause a pause to consider. Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #80

Obiously, no. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2015 #98

This is a bunch of bull zalinda Oct 2015 #101

Those are strange predictions about what would happen in the absence of this law. DanTex Oct 2015 #106

I can only imagine that its really sad to be a Bernie supporter workinclasszero Oct 2015 #117

Sad to be an American on such a day. DanTex Oct 2015 #118

Yes it is. workinclasszero Oct 2015 #119

He won't LIE about it . orpupilofnature57 Oct 2015 #128

Completely unrecommended. Enthusiast Oct 2015 #121

Kick & recommended. William769 Oct 2015 #122

It takes talent to hijack ones own thread Fearless Oct 2015 #123

The only exception is Bernie siding with any corporation, look at his history . orpupilofnature57 Oct 2015 #126

How many others Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #127

You do know that McDonalds was sued for selling a faulty product, right? last1standing Oct 2015 #132

"Straw Man, Straw Man" Aerows Oct 2015 #136

The pretzel logic of the OP and the surreal level of intellectual dishonesty the OP demonstrates in Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #141