Ok, don't flame me, I'm as pro-2nd as anyone here.
My wife is taking a business law class at the local college, and I'm her appointed study helper. This course is not pre-law, (thank God, no long lists of code and case numbers), but it is a pretty good overview of the way that the laws of our land are interpritated/enforced. I'm gaining a much better understanding of our judicial system. More than a few times I've said: "Wow, THAT would help preserve our 2nd ammendment rights" after gaining a more thourough understanding of a detailed aspect. However, I am very disappointed to have found the paragraph that follows. How in hell are the gun manufacturers going to get past this?
DEFENSES TO PRODUCT LIABILITY
Misuse of the product
Sometimes, injury results when a product is misused. If the [victim] brings a product liability action, the defendant [seller/manufacturer] may be able to assert the misuse as a defense. Whether the defense is effective depends on whether the misuse was foreseeable. The seller is relieved of product liability if the plantiff has abnormally misused the product--that is, there has been an unforeseeable misuse of the product. However, the [seller/manufacturer] is liable if there has been a foreseeable misuse of the product. This reasoning is intended to provide an incentive for manufacturers to design and manufacture safer products.
Misuse
A defense that relieves a seller/manufacturer of product liability if the user abnormally misused the product. Products must be designed to protect against foreseeable misuse.
I really hate to say it, but isn't "smart gun technology" following the "letter of the law"?
An example case that is given follows: Someone locked theirself in the trunk of their car with suicidal intent. Lawsuite was brought against the manufacturer of the vehicle because there was no provision to open the trunk from the inside. The reason that the manufacturer was not held liable was that it was an unforeseeable misuse (ie suicide). Had it been a case of a child accidently locked in the trunk, the outcome could have been very different. The latter scenario should have been foreseeable.
------------------
The Bible is my lawbook. I turn the other cheek when applicable, and spend the rest of my days resisting evil at every front, until I have breathed my last breath.
[This message has been edited by fastforty (edited March 07, 2000).]
My wife is taking a business law class at the local college, and I'm her appointed study helper. This course is not pre-law, (thank God, no long lists of code and case numbers), but it is a pretty good overview of the way that the laws of our land are interpritated/enforced. I'm gaining a much better understanding of our judicial system. More than a few times I've said: "Wow, THAT would help preserve our 2nd ammendment rights" after gaining a more thourough understanding of a detailed aspect. However, I am very disappointed to have found the paragraph that follows. How in hell are the gun manufacturers going to get past this?
DEFENSES TO PRODUCT LIABILITY
Misuse of the product
Sometimes, injury results when a product is misused. If the [victim] brings a product liability action, the defendant [seller/manufacturer] may be able to assert the misuse as a defense. Whether the defense is effective depends on whether the misuse was foreseeable. The seller is relieved of product liability if the plantiff has abnormally misused the product--that is, there has been an unforeseeable misuse of the product. However, the [seller/manufacturer] is liable if there has been a foreseeable misuse of the product. This reasoning is intended to provide an incentive for manufacturers to design and manufacture safer products.
Misuse
A defense that relieves a seller/manufacturer of product liability if the user abnormally misused the product. Products must be designed to protect against foreseeable misuse.
I really hate to say it, but isn't "smart gun technology" following the "letter of the law"?
An example case that is given follows: Someone locked theirself in the trunk of their car with suicidal intent. Lawsuite was brought against the manufacturer of the vehicle because there was no provision to open the trunk from the inside. The reason that the manufacturer was not held liable was that it was an unforeseeable misuse (ie suicide). Had it been a case of a child accidently locked in the trunk, the outcome could have been very different. The latter scenario should have been foreseeable.
------------------
The Bible is my lawbook. I turn the other cheek when applicable, and spend the rest of my days resisting evil at every front, until I have breathed my last breath.
[This message has been edited by fastforty (edited March 07, 2000).]