Bump fire stock maker slide fire solutions.

Yes, well you knew it was only a matter of time. Three people who were at the concert last week on which Stephen Paddock rained gunfire from his Mandalay Bay hotel room have sued Slide Fire Solutions, apparently the maker of the bump fire stocks used in the shooting spree.

The plaintiffs are suing for product liability, negligence, emotional distress, and public nuisance.

The company temporarily suspended taking new orders “in order to provide the best services with those already placed.”

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was enacted to shield firearms makers against suits resulting when their otherwise legal products are used by criminals to injure or kill. The PLCAA, however, does not extend its protections to accessory makers.

Again, this suit has been brought by only three of the 20,000+ people who were there that night. You have to expect a good deal more will be filed in the days and weeks to come against not only Slide Fire, but also likely Mandalay Bay and possibly even the makers of the rifles Paddock used as well. It wouldn’t be the first time a plaintiff has disregarded the PLCAA and sued a gun company anyway.

39 Responses to Las Vegas Concertgoers Sue Bump Fire Stock Maker Slide Fire Solutions

  1. If they want to be litigious they should sue the concert venue for not providing adequate security.

    In the future I bet there will be “contract agreements” that need to be agreed to on every ticket that when you check the box or whatever, explicitly states that you will not hold the venue or whomever liable for any injury…

    This is what happens at the end of the empire…

    • I bet those are already in place, hence why they are trying to sue slidefire. Its like tickets at pro baseball games. On the back in .00005 font is a long agreement that is barely legible. Those suits will get no where. If the Obama administration did not let those affected by Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11 sue the Saudi government why would the Trump administration allow this? That is if they can intervene at all.

    • Such a contract is like the one on the back of the ticket you get when you park your car, the one that says the lot and it’s owners and employees are not liable for any damage or loss while parked: not enforceable. A “shrink wrap” contract isn’t worth the paper it may or may not be printed on.
      Here in the USA, anyone can sue anyone, for anything. Winning a suit, though, depends on who can sweet-talk the judge/jury the best. (For some good examples or really stupid civil suits, sit in on a day of small claims court.)
      In a suit such as this, there would need to be a nexus between the actual use of the slidefire stock, and the makers; this is usually attempted to show that advertising made the end user find the stock (or other device) not only suited for his/her purpose, but the manufacturer actually endorsed that particular use. That’s not easy to do.
      Any defense lawyer fresh out of law school can find and use examples of everyday items (or even specialty items) that are misused for harm, with the manufacturer found to not be responsible in any way.
      IANAL.

  2. It is staggering how many morons never heard of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    The lawyers are willfully ignorant or they know about the law but are milking these idiots for a payout.

    Either way they garner no more sympathy from me. It’s these sue-happy morons that make costs so high in America to do business coupled with ambulance-chasing lawyer scumbags.

    • Ya know, Raoul, you really should read the article first before posting. The PLCAA does not apply to the maker of the stock, since it is an accessory and not a firearm.

      • “The PLCAA does not apply to the maker of the stock, since it is an accessory and not a firearm.”

        Interesting.

        Perhaps it *should* apply… 🙂

        • It could apply.

          All it would take is a court precedent to make it so, a so-called “expansive interpretation” of the law.

          Stranger things have happened.

  3. It seems the deeper pockets are the Mandalay Bay and it’s affiliate casinos. This is obviously a Dem funded pushed litigation. Did anyone sue Ford when terrorists ram cars and trucks into crowds? I think not.

  4. He should have shot up Morgan & Morgan, instead. Actually, any of the big law firms that “ambulance chase” on T.V. would make a suitable target of opportunity. These big law firms are among the biggest funders of the anti-gun Demorat party.

  5. meanwhile:

    gun-hub.com/index.php/2017/10/08/2-survivors-las-vegas-shooting-speak-gun-control-tragic-cost-freedom/

  6. Where are the lawsuits against the a hole’s estate? He’s reported to be a multimillionaire with houses in Nevada, Florida, California, and Texas.

      • Someone has already petitioned the court (don’t know which one) to “freeze” all of REGISTERED DEMOCRAT and Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock’s assets in behalf of victims. We will soon see if deranged Democrat Paddock was as rich as some claim or if he was as some suspect laundering money for some nefarious group at the video poker machines

        • Mark N.

          One of the Conservative websites had posted a photo of Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock’s 1984 voter info from Palm Beach Fl. when he lived there, he WAS a “registered Democrat” at the time (I doubt he ever changed party affiliations and until evidence to the contray is presented or it is confirmed he switched and/or became an “unaffiliated” voter he IS and WILL remain for our purposes a “Registered Democrat”).

          Remember Obama’s pal and Chicongo Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s mantra “NEVER let a crisis go to waste, exploit it for political gain” I intend to do THAT with Registered Democrat and Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddocks to the fullest, I’m gonna take every opportunity to hang that POS shit around the Democrat’s neck like an albatross and so should you.

  7. Suing two companies that are in all likelihood already discussing their future with bankruptcy attorneys. That makes a lot of sense.

    This case stands absolutely no chance in court. They sold a legal product that performed EXACTLY as it was designed to perform. They have zero liability for the misuse of their product once in the hands of the consumer.

    • You are certainly correct as to products liability; it is a nonstarter. The negligence is a little bit dicier, but for the fact that an intentional criminal act is more often than not–but not always–found to be an “intervening act” interrupting the chain of causation. The argument, on the negligence cause of action, will be that the manufacturer “knew or should have known that it was reasonably foreseeable that the product would be used in a criminal manner.” [By way of example, bars have been held liable when they failed to provide adequate lighting in their parking lots or outside even though they knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that criminal acts (beatings, fights, muggings) were likely to occur.
      The nuisance argument will simply argue that the mere existence of the product, no matter how properly made, is a “public or private nuisance” that caused injuries to the plaintiffs. The elements of a “public nuisance” claim are:

      That [name of defendant], by acting or failing to act, created a
      condition that [insert one or more of the following:]
      1. [was harmful to health;]
      2. That the condition affected a substantial number of people at the
      same time;
      3. That an ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or
      disturbed by the condition;
      4. That the seriousness of the harm outweighs the social utility of
      [name of defendant]’s conduct;
      5. That [name of plaintiff] did not consent to [name of defendant]’s
      conduct;
      6. That [name of plaintiff] suffered harm that was different from the
      type of harm suffered by the general public; and
      7. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in
      causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

      Basically they will argue that bump stocks have no social utility, and that they were harmed, and that the bump stock was a substantial factor in the cause of their harm.
      Nuisance theory was how large capacity magazines were banned/ subject to confiscation by the police in California.

      • Slide Fire did not allow him to shoot a bunch of people. He could have, and would have, shot a whole bunch of people with or without a bump-fire stock.

        He took a lot of things made by a lot of different people and did something horrible with them. Blaming any or all of them is stupid. There’s only one common denominator in all of this: Stephen Paddock, a now deceased murderer.

  8. There is no indication that the use of bumpfire stocks contributed to the casualty count. It could be argued, easily, that they would have been higher without, through the use of aimed fire over the 10 minutes he conducted his attack.

    • I agree that this will be the principal defense to the nuisance claim, and it goes to the heart of the causation issue.

  9. As I always say, I hope they lose and are forced to pay all associated court costs. If that drives the victims of this horror into bankruptcy, that’s on them.

    Dont make bad decisions, just because you are the victim of a crime.

  10. I’m not so sure that PLCAA would not apply here. There might be interpreting caselaw on the subject, but at first blush a stock would seem to be entitled to protection. PLCAA applies its protections to “qualified products,” a term defined by 15 U.S.C. § 7903(4) to mean “a firearm … including any antique firearm … or ammunition … or a component part of a firearm or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” A stock strikes me as a “component part” of a firearm, so I would argue that PLCAA’s protections apply.

    • “PLCAA applies its protections to “qualified products,” a term defined by 15 U.S.C. § 7903(4) to mean “a firearm … including any antique firearm … or ammunition … or a component part of a firearm or ammunition,…”

      It seems that way to me, but I ain’t no lawyer.

      Can any of the TTAG JDs comment on this?

  11. It would probably be a good idea to sue the Ammo manufacture also the gun manufacture and the brass company that makes the cartridges and last but not least the hotel because that was used as a sniper tower I’d sue Las Vegas because that was the town he did it in They should probably try to sue God because he was breathing his Air

  12. Just wondering…
    In case of vehicle assault, should we sue the car maker or the tire maker?
    Or maybe the seat padding maker, who made so comfortable to drive it?

  13. Can I sue carmakers for making cars that go above every legal speedlimit in the United States as well?
    Because we know its those damn sentient cars, not their drivers.

  14. This should be interesting. I’m popping up some popcorn and grabbing a comfy seat on the sofa to watch this play out. I expect it will be very entertaining.

  15. Allowing such a lawsuit to succeed would be the downfall of American industry.
    Once such a precedent is set then every automaker in America will go bankrupt
    from all the lawsuits filed by victims of drunk drivers. And that is just the tip of the
    iceberg. Virtually ANY item that can or has been used in any way to harm another
    would be a target for such frivolous litigation. Any judge who does not dismiss this
    and any other such lawsuit out of hand immediately is laying the groundwork for the
    collapse of American commerce and society. The PLCIA act is a bandaid…..and in
    reality is not necessary if firearms were viewed as just another inanimate object.

  16. Well there you go, my loved one was just murdered, and I’m thinking about money. People ask what’s wrong with America? My first wife died an the last thing I cared about was her life insurance, I called it blood money. $$$$ ain’t going bring em back.This sucks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *