I found one key phrase in the plaintiffs' assertion by their lawyer:
The families’ goal has always been to shed light on Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety
I realize that "high-risk users" is not, AFAIK, a well-defined legal term, but if they (the plaintiffs) can establish both a workable legal definition, and show that Remington seriously tried to knowingly sell the Bushmaster to those "high-risk users", then they may WELL have a case for criminal negligence, or whatever the term is. In any case, I think the plaintiffs are going to have to show that Remington KNEW that it was urging the sale of its firearms to buyers seeking to use them to commit crimes, which may be a VERY tall order.
One can easily extrapolate a ridiculous ad campaign that would easily fit the description of an open and shut case:
"Thinking of robbing your local bank or liquor store? Afraid they may have armed guards you have to take out? Well you won't have to worry with our new BrushMaestro, capable of firing 100 rounds of high-penetration case-hardened ammo rapidly, able to piercing ANY Kevlar vest!"
Somewhere between legal marketing and such an obvious obscene ad rendering the seller culpable, there may WELL be a line beyond which Remington went, that renders them liable.
I do not know, but I'd guess it depends on what "courting high-risk users" means and if Remington did so. Did Adam Lanza's mother buy the Bushmaster because of her son's response to Remington's advertising, and was someone like Lanza their target?
Again, I don't know, but with lots of folks gut reaction to their suit I figured I'd see if I saw any potential in it, and that's what I found.
Reactions?
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."