Many workers lost fingers in the presses or suffered injuries from accidents with chemicals and gunpowder. Lead dust from the bullets filled the factory and slowly poisoned those with prolonged contact. On April 4, 1905, 3 men were killed when an explosion blew 1 of the 38 buildings to pieces. In a factory that large and with an emphasis on output rather than safety, industrial accidents were commonplace and often fatal. Of course, this powerful and lethal production line had a dark side. The New York Times called the plant "the greatest small arms and ammunition plant in the world" employing well over 17,000 people. The factory continued to supply ammunitions throughout WWI and the Russian Civil War (1917-1923), churning out approximately 10,000 rifles per day. After $12 million in 12 months, Remington was now 1 of the largest ammunitions plants in the world. Remington also employed 300 former soldiers to patrol the buildings and the factory lines. Remington kicked up its production output by building a massive factory comprised of 38 buildings over 73 acres - all in less than a year. In 1912, the European conflict that would eventually become World War I was escalating, and in an effort to increase their production of ammunition and rifles, Union Metallic merged with the Remington Arms Company to form Remington U.M.C.īy 1914, WWI had rocked Europe. In 1867 the Union Metallic Cartridge Company opened a factory in Bridgeport's East End.
Remington rifle free#
Please feel free to contact us if you have questions about this far-reaching decision.After the United States Civil War ended, many Americans owned guns and the global market to supply shotgun shells and bullets was expanding. Moreover, the broad interpretation of CUTPA stands, which means that businesses in all industries should be aware that wrongful marketing activities could subject them to liability under CUTPA, which allows for the award of punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
With the United States Supreme Court’s decision to deny cert., the case will now return to Connecticut and proceed with discovery.
The plaintiffs appealed, claiming that the CUTPA claim actually fell within PLCAA’s “predicate exception,” which permits claims against weapons manufacturers when the claim is based upon a state statute “applicable to the sale or marketing of a firearm.” In a 4-3 split decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed, concluding that a wrongful advertising claim under CUTPA fell within the predicate exception of PLCAA, because CUTPA prohibits any “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the Connecticut Supreme Court reasoned, CUTPA fell within the scope of PLCAA’s predicate exception, because CUTPA’s language renders it applicable to all trade or commerce, including the sale and marketing of firearms.
Remington rifle trial#
In the trial court, the weapons manufacturers moved to dismiss based in part upon PLCAA and won. The Plaintiffs allege that Bushmaster and other gun manufacturers had advertised the AR-15 in a manner that was unscrupulous and encouraged dangerous conduct by, among other things, touting the weapon’s usefulness for waging war and killing human beings, and claiming that the weapon would allow a single individual to outnumber his opponents and force them to “bow down.” The families brought the claim against the manufacturers of the AR-15 assault rifle used in the tragedy, claiming that the manufacturers engaged in wrongful advertising (advertising that encourages dangerous or violent conduct). 53, 202 A.3d 262 (2019), the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that PLCAA did not preclude a claim brought by the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Connecticut General Statutes §42-110a, et seq. The appeal concerned the Connecticut Supreme Court’s 2019 decision interpreting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (“PLCAA”), a federal law which is aimed at immunizing arms manufacturers from lawsuits brought by the victims of crimes committed by individuals using weapons built and sold by those manufacturers. While the focus of this case ought to remain on the families and the Newtown community, this decision has broad implications for the larger business community, and we write to you to alert you to that aspect of the decision. The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in Remington Arms Co.
0 kommentar(er)
