TheKlawMan
Moderator
If Adam is smart he will clam up
Since he may have to litigate things, the place to argue his case is in court and in front of a jury that is willing to follow the law of his state. The members of this board have made it perfectly clear that they have little regard for the dictates of the law.
Let me clue you in on the pregnant 19 year old hypo. In that case the manufacturer of the conversion kit would clearly be responsible; the question is for how much of her damages. ALL jurisdictions (states) pretty much agree that much.
The reason the manufacturer would be responsible is that the woman was an innocent with no fault of her own. Hence the manufacturer would have some liability to her, since the shooter's conduct was forseeable, even if it was neglient.
The conduct of a third party, here that would be the shooter, would only be a defense against the woman's claim if the third party's conduct was a superceding unforseeable event. This kind of negligence is clearly forseeable.
Hence it may be a pure defense to any claim of the shooter in those very few states that still follow the rule of contributory negligence (one's own negligence, regardless of how minor, cuts off any liability to them).
This assumes that there was some defect in the manifacture, design, or warnings given by the manufacturer. For purposes of the hyopothetical involving the pregnant 19 year old, you were to assume that the manufacturer knew that its product increased the risk of firing during a reload, but the manufacturer chose not to warn the shooter of the longer hot breech times. Under those circumstances, many judges would charge the jury that the manufacturer was liable on account of its failure to issue the warning if the jury finds that the lack of warning casued the accident.
You all assume that I am this greedy plaintiff's attorney. Few were brought for plaintiffs and they were in the field of securities and cotract law. Most all the injury ones were at the behest of insurance companies.
I would have agrued in my hyptehtical situation that the jury should not find the manufacturer liable, since there was no reason to believe that the hypothetical shooteer, who was clearly negligent and even reckless, would have paid any attention to the warning. On the other hand, were I the shooter's attorney I would have offered whatever evidence existed to show that the shooter was being extra cautious as he familariized himself with the conversion kit. Such an argument would be hard to make in the case of the shooter reloading with his muzzle facing back of the line, but that is not the case with Adam and I am not going there.
My point is that I have devoted much of my life to defending personal injury suits and I don't like to see money passed out without cause. I only recently stopped hearing arbitrations and was known as a defense arbitrator, though I would rule for a plaintiff when it was warranted. Still, I kept the size of the damage awards within reason.
But I am amazed by you folk. The heck with the purely innocent dead girl and the dead baby in her belly. So what if the manufacturer's deiberate decison not to issue the warning was a cause of their deaths. The shooter was negligent.
Since he may have to litigate things, the place to argue his case is in court and in front of a jury that is willing to follow the law of his state. The members of this board have made it perfectly clear that they have little regard for the dictates of the law.
Let me clue you in on the pregnant 19 year old hypo. In that case the manufacturer of the conversion kit would clearly be responsible; the question is for how much of her damages. ALL jurisdictions (states) pretty much agree that much.
The reason the manufacturer would be responsible is that the woman was an innocent with no fault of her own. Hence the manufacturer would have some liability to her, since the shooter's conduct was forseeable, even if it was neglient.
The conduct of a third party, here that would be the shooter, would only be a defense against the woman's claim if the third party's conduct was a superceding unforseeable event. This kind of negligence is clearly forseeable.
Hence it may be a pure defense to any claim of the shooter in those very few states that still follow the rule of contributory negligence (one's own negligence, regardless of how minor, cuts off any liability to them).
This assumes that there was some defect in the manifacture, design, or warnings given by the manufacturer. For purposes of the hyopothetical involving the pregnant 19 year old, you were to assume that the manufacturer knew that its product increased the risk of firing during a reload, but the manufacturer chose not to warn the shooter of the longer hot breech times. Under those circumstances, many judges would charge the jury that the manufacturer was liable on account of its failure to issue the warning if the jury finds that the lack of warning casued the accident.
You all assume that I am this greedy plaintiff's attorney. Few were brought for plaintiffs and they were in the field of securities and cotract law. Most all the injury ones were at the behest of insurance companies.
I would have agrued in my hyptehtical situation that the jury should not find the manufacturer liable, since there was no reason to believe that the hypothetical shooteer, who was clearly negligent and even reckless, would have paid any attention to the warning. On the other hand, were I the shooter's attorney I would have offered whatever evidence existed to show that the shooter was being extra cautious as he familariized himself with the conversion kit. Such an argument would be hard to make in the case of the shooter reloading with his muzzle facing back of the line, but that is not the case with Adam and I am not going there.
My point is that I have devoted much of my life to defending personal injury suits and I don't like to see money passed out without cause. I only recently stopped hearing arbitrations and was known as a defense arbitrator, though I would rule for a plaintiff when it was warranted. Still, I kept the size of the damage awards within reason.
But I am amazed by you folk. The heck with the purely innocent dead girl and the dead baby in her belly. So what if the manufacturer's deiberate decison not to issue the warning was a cause of their deaths. The shooter was negligent.
You either missed or chose to take out of context what I said, which was that "This assumes that there was some defect in the manifacture, design, or warnings given by the manufacturer." If the manufacturer had no fault, they are not responsible for the death of the girl and her baby.
.