Two-year-old Caroline Sparks killed by five-year-old brother

Rick -

I wasn't saying what I thought SHOULD happen -- I was saying what I figured would happen.

LJ - know all about the legislation - but I have no doubt they'll get served.

Packaging - don't really have issues (my daughter wanted a pink rifle - they're among the few companies that offer them).

My opinion is the parents are primarily responsible for this accident.
I don't support anything more than insisting they not posess firearms again.
They'll punish themselves enough. Their reputation in the community will suffer plenty.
(as a parent - would you let your kid be friends with their son?)

I don't think we need government to add to the pain.

Nobody that matters wrote: All the parties? The Mom and Dad are alone in responsibility.

Personal responsibility? Here in 2013 in America? Nonsense. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault. Personal responsibility and being accountable for your own actions is no longer the norm for our society.

In America, it is usually the fault of the person with the deepest pockets. Lawyers rule.

Yup - Fred.

I'd wager at least a buck that someone - somewhere will go after Cricket.

No - I doubt they have a strong legal case --- but can't imagine for a minute that a jury would sit there and declare them
completely immune from responsibility (regardless of how I might feel). I'd expect their lawyers to arrange an
out-of-court settlement to avoid the publicity.

What a great society we live in. One can do nothing wrong and still end up pulling money out of their pockets to get rid of a nuisance suit like the one currently being hypothesized. Unfortunately, the only remedy I can think of is loser pays for all attorney's costs, both for their own attorney and the ones for the other side, but that has the downside of effectively shutting out those who were actually harmed but don't have the resources to make sure they are compensated for the harm they suffered. Such a system would effectively eliminate the contingency fee option for them as well.

The legal process is often leveraged to extort funds from people and organizations ---- and I'd wager a nickel or two that lawyers understand that.

I suppose that's simply opportunism at its best (worst?)

I'm sure if I thought about things long enough, I could figure out someone I could sue for something ---- but I simply don't have the energy, gumption, or self-respect to do that.

bailey bud wrote: I'm sure if I thought about things long enough, I could figure out someone I could sue for something ---- but I simply don't have the energy, gumption, or self-respect to do that.

I've had many occasions where I could have sued but never felt like there was any intent to harm me. I figure there are risks all around me and I'm not going to try blaming people or businesses every time I get unlucky.
I went into cardiac arrest for twenty minutes due to a chemo drug a couple years ago, then another drug caused permanent neuropathy in my feet. I chalked it up to being lucky that those drugs eventually knocked out the cancer. (Plus there was probably some fine print somewhere I never read)

chickaree wrote: False examples. Would you package bleach so it looks like juice? Make hair dryers look like rubber ducks? Don't deliberately make dangerous things look tantalizing to children. But, by all means, go on and defend Crickett. We know that is the rsponsibility of all Republicans, jist as all Democrats must absolve the parents. As I said, when ideology enters the room, common sense flies out the window. I lose all respect for people when they fall for this foolishness. Either everyone should be responsible for their decisions, or no one should be.

False examples? The advertisements on TV are flooded with car commercials which promote reckless speeding in their new cars. Fast, fast, and faster! That is the automobile ad for the past couple of years. If there was ever a case for product liability, this is it. But no attorney in the U.S. would seriously file a product liability suit against any car manufacturer.

Those are not aimed at 5 year olds and you know it.

chickaree wrote: Those are not aimed at 5 year olds and you know it.

The Hamster ads are pretty dang juvenile - they're either aimed at juveniles or style-impaired adults.