DonR101395
New member
You better get to working on it WA. I see you more into the pot stirrers club
+1 WM nicely stated
Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit
- Thread starter guntime22
- Start date
- Status
You better get to working on it WA. I see you more into the pot stirrers club
+1 WM nicely stated
You copied that before I realized that I had misread the post and that wmeSha was not agreeing with me
But you are more than welcome in any club I am in that involves forcing people to think about what they say and back it up when they say it to discredit what I say
Hell some of my style is modeled after you
But you are more than welcome in any club I am in that involves forcing people to think about what they say and back it up when they say it to discredit what I say
Hell some of my style is modeled after you
Wildalaska
Moderator
You confuse pot stirring with my making sure the blatant errors in posts are corrected
WildsomakesureyouarerightfromhereoninAlaska
What is there to address
Someone thinks that you can load six rounds into a gun with a five round capacity?
Or that they are reading what they want and not the part about it not being safe to carry with the five round load it was designed to carry
Sorry I just don't see any shreds
All I see is someone calling names again with little to back it up
And who said this and when, I can't find it
For starters it is you that started calling people stupid. I simply called it ridiculous.
The point is Joab that carrying the gun with all 6 for the SSA or 5 in the FA can be done safely so long as the hammer isn't manipulated or the gun dropped on the hammer. The gun will never fire unless this action happens.
Since you and I will never agree I give up. Many choose to prepare for this "obvious design flaw" by using the "extraordinary action" of leaving one chamber empty thereby exposing the flaw since the factory made a 5 or 6 shot revolver not a 4 or 5 shot revolver. Joab is right. The legless man should have won millions for FA's obvious wrong doing that caused said legless man to violate the main safety rule FA demandes. This violation had nothing to do with the accident it was FA's fault.
Well now I have to call someone a liar, show me where
Please show me where I have said differently
Changing the argument does not mean you win
The plain cold fact is that in the normal course of carrying the gun in the situations that the gun is advertised as being appropriate for ( that would be hunting and backwoods hiking) it is entirely possible and some may even say probable that outside forces can act on the hammer (that would be twigs and vines, or maybe even heavy leather coats) and cause the hammer to retract enough to fire the gun
If this scenario was not possible and some might say probable then why does the factory outline the method for circumventing their design flaw in order to prevent this very thing from happening
Actually if this very scenario was not possible and some would say probable the FA would not have found themselves in court trying to explain away this very occurrence
If this very scenario were not possible and some would say probable then you and your friends just wasted a whole lot of time trying to explain that this was a a precaution that was negligent not to take
Excuse me while I sweep up the tattered shreds of your point, oh look there's some waffle in here too
Ah yes the whineful cry of the hapless
You cannot win a debate on the merits of you argument so you go the straw man route
Please show me where I said that the "legless" mans was blameless (I can show you where I did not)
Please show me where I said that the award of $300,000 was to little (I can show you where I did not)
You lost this argument because you are arguing on emotion and not fact
I have history and science on my side you have only emotion and rhetoric
Wildalaska
Moderator
Guys, guys lighten up.
The above says it all in a sarcastic manner.
Because this products liability/negligence (and not having read the pleadings I dont know which, or both..in light of the actual verdict as reported, I assume the finding was based on negligence) lawsuit has resulted in a finding that BOTH parties were at fault.
This was Ohio, yes? Like so many other states, Ohio is a comparative negligence state. That means a plaintiff who is 50% or less at fault recovers, but his award was reduced by his own "fault". That means is essence, that the jury said "Mr Plaintiff, you were a total jerkoff in (insert stupid act here) but the Defendant should have or could have or did (insert action/inaction here)"
By the way, where is your state:
Comparative Negligence Comparisons
Comparative negligence is based on contributory negligence
States with Pure Comparative Negligence
Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Puerto Rico, Alaska, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico
States with 49% rule
Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming
States with 50% rule
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, Virgin Islands
Pure Comparative Negligence:
Plaintiff's share of the negligence 20%
Defendant's share of the negligence 80%
Plaintiff's damages $ 10,000
Plaintiff's recovery (10000x .80) $ 8000
The 50% rule
Plaintiff's share of the negligence 50%
Defendant's share of the negligence 50%
Plaintiff's damages $ 20,000
Plaintiff's recovery (an equally negligent plaintiff can recover) $10,000 (50%)
(But a plaintiff over 50% at fault is barred from recovery)
49% Rule
Plaintiff's share of the negligence 50%
Defendant's share of the negligence 50%
Plaintiff's damages $ 20,000
Plaintiff's recovery $ 0
(under the 49% rule, an equally negligent plaintiff is barred from recovery
And how much ya want to bet that in the early stages of this suit there were efforts to get the case heard in Wyoming! See why?
Now, lets say we have a lawnmower. Only the numbnuts among us would stick their hand in the chute whilst it was running. I can give you a dozen plausible legal scenarios BOTH ways where liability COULD be found.
Add to that that we HAVE NO IDEA what the facts were before the Court leads me again to point out that ya'll are only getting worked up over this because a GUN is involved.
Guns are tools or toys. They arent life. No one is going to make you a castrato if you have to use a transfer bar. Life is full of such annoyances, like Braille drive through ATMs.
All things being equal, the ninny that shot himself deserved it for being an idiot. And Freedom Arms deserved it for not making their gun, in the very essense of reality, idiot proof.
But thats capitalism folks. The law is an industry like everything else.
WildihaveanintermittentmodemthisposttookanhourpleasehelphelpAlaska
Joab,
Calling people dumb, implying that we rode the "little bus" (the bus that the dumb kids rode in school), and a host of personal attacks on our intelligence. Just so you can't worm your way out of it the definition of stupid is "Slow to learn or understand; obtuse". dumb is defined as "Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid". Now lets see if you are man enough to apologize for calling me a liar.
I think this is enough yes?
Calling people dumb, implying that we rode the "little bus" (the bus that the dumb kids rode in school), and a host of personal attacks on our intelligence. Just so you can't worm your way out of it the definition of stupid is "Slow to learn or understand; obtuse". dumb is defined as "Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid". Now lets see if you are man enough to apologize for calling me a liar.
I think this is enough yes?
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
How do you define extraordinary measures? Is common sence one of them? I mean I am asking an honest question. Common sense says if the hammer strikes a live round it is going to go bang.. I still fail to see how the company is liable. The gun functioned exactly how the maker sad it would. The fact that the owner did not fully understand the operation of the firearm is not their fault. Of course had he been practising the 3 BASIC rules of gun saftey none of this would have happened. I suppose the fact he violated the first 3 rules of gun saftey is the gun makers fault too?
Edward429451
Moderator
I think he means make it idiot proof for the people who ride the short bus.
I thought it was common knowledge to load one, skip one, load 3 (or 4) to put the hammer over an empty hole. I guess common knowledge is like common sense now though, not very common at all.
Next thing you know, auto makers will be sued for people having accidents in manual shift vehicles because of the extraordinary measures required to drive it and shift gears while talking on the cell phone. Derrr they shoulda known I'd need to talk on my phone...
Are people losing the ability to think for themselves?
Never said I didn't return fire I said that you were lying when you said
Now lets see if you are man enough to act like a man
I have explained this many time in this discussion, but I don't blame you for not wanting to wade through the many simplistic post to get to it
I define extraordinary as Webster does
Beyond what is ordinary
If a gun is designed to hold five rounds it would ordinarily expected that it would be safe to carry five rounds
The FA takes the extraordinary precaution, beyond it's design, of leaving one chamber, which is perfectly capable of accepting a round, empty to make the gun safe
Just because carrying on an empty is an old method of circumventing the flaw does not correct the flaw
Actually there are four and "make sure your gun is not in a holster when you take your coat off "is not one of them.
You are aware of the particular of the case right?
Is a stick shift designed to be operated while talking on the phone.
It takes extraordinary measures to use the phone and drive a car, that's why it is illegal in many states and localities
Next strawman to swat down
If this thread is any indication many are
At least they are losing the ability to use a dictionary
Edward429451
Moderator
Look man, guns are dangerous to begin with. SA revolvers have a pretty specialized application nowadays, and the people who buy them are usually not novices and can think for themselves. Even if the FA revolvers had a transfer bar safety, a doofus who doesn't follow basic firearms safety rules would still hurt themselves with one.
Do we not have any personal responsibility for ourselves? Safety precautions are a given and the more dangerous the implement, the more responsibility on the end user to (be 10% smarter than the inanimate object) excercise caution and good safety practices.
It holds 5 so should be able to hold 5 safely...
Are you serious or just a lawyer? Using your logic, why not buy your daughter a 800 HP funny car for her to learn to drive in? It has a gas pedal, it's made to go. Would that be the carmakers fault if she wrecked it?
I work in air conditioning and sometimes recover the gasses in the system into a 30 LB jug. I can't put more than 24 LBS into it (80%). But OMG it's a 30 lb jug, it should be able to handle 30 lbs in it. But wait! I'm 10% smarter than the jug so realize that I have to allow room for expansion so the jug wont explode if temps rise. It is not advertised that the jug is to be kept <80% capacity, and yet that is the safety rule. You could go buy the A/C stuff yourself but if you are not 10% smarter than what you're using and safety conscious, you could get into trouble trying to do something that is over your head. The thing to do is to seek professional training, or seek a professional to do it. Things are not always as they seem.
You make inane points and should go take a critical thinking class.
Do we not have any personal responsibility for ourselves? Safety precautions are a given and the more dangerous the implement, the more responsibility on the end user to (be 10% smarter than the inanimate object) excercise caution and good safety practices.
It holds 5 so should be able to hold 5 safely...
Are you serious or just a lawyer? Using your logic, why not buy your daughter a 800 HP funny car for her to learn to drive in? It has a gas pedal, it's made to go. Would that be the carmakers fault if she wrecked it?
I work in air conditioning and sometimes recover the gasses in the system into a 30 LB jug. I can't put more than 24 LBS into it (80%). But OMG it's a 30 lb jug, it should be able to handle 30 lbs in it. But wait! I'm 10% smarter than the jug so realize that I have to allow room for expansion so the jug wont explode if temps rise. It is not advertised that the jug is to be kept <80% capacity, and yet that is the safety rule. You could go buy the A/C stuff yourself but if you are not 10% smarter than what you're using and safety conscious, you could get into trouble trying to do something that is over your head. The thing to do is to seek professional training, or seek a professional to do it. Things are not always as they seem.
You make inane points and should go take a critical thinking class.
Ed, But nobody aswers his questions LOL.
The gun can hold five rounds quit safely as it takes an additional action to make it accidentally fire. To make the gun as safe as possible to carry, one must simply load one less cartridge hardly extraordinary.
Now Joab states that this "extraordinary" action is well known or common knowledge and has been for decades. Despite being well known and written in the owners manuel somehow the manufacture is to blame not the consumer.
What has changed since 1873? Back then and up until around 1960ish folks accepted blame for irrisponsible behavior. Now we have thinkers like Joab. Can't understand that the consumer was negligent. The gun function as designed so manufacture defect wasn't to blame. The sole barrer of the blame in this case is the consumer. Had he carried in the manner prescribed by the factory guess what no accident.
If the SAA design is defective then so is the series 70 1911 and many other guns which have either limitations of carry or safer more current designs.
Critical thinking LOL
The gun can hold five rounds quit safely as it takes an additional action to make it accidentally fire. To make the gun as safe as possible to carry, one must simply load one less cartridge hardly extraordinary.
Now Joab states that this "extraordinary" action is well known or common knowledge and has been for decades. Despite being well known and written in the owners manuel somehow the manufacture is to blame not the consumer.
What has changed since 1873? Back then and up until around 1960ish folks accepted blame for irrisponsible behavior. Now we have thinkers like Joab. Can't understand that the consumer was negligent. The gun function as designed so manufacture defect wasn't to blame. The sole barrer of the blame in this case is the consumer. Had he carried in the manner prescribed by the factory guess what no accident.
If the SAA design is defective then so is the series 70 1911 and many other guns which have either limitations of carry or safer more current designs.
Critical thinking LOL
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
You mean that extra pedal actualy has a purpose? And here I was about to sue FoMoCo becuase their product was unsafe. Here I thought it was just an extra brake pedal. Yeah FoMoCo is to blame. They have a bad design which resulted my vehicle ending up in the ditch. (/extreme sarcasm)
theinvisibleheart
New member
joab, is licensing required for special market segment?
joab, most companies sell products which are targeted for special market segment (particular class/type of consumers). However, with few exceptions, people are free to buy any product they choose.
The fact that the product is designed for one market segment doesn't mean the company needs to restrict the sales of their product to only people who qualify and are knowledgeable. The onus for knowing the product that they buy is on the buyer, not the seller, as long as the seller doesn't make false claims such as the gun is safe to carry with all chambers loaded and AD/ND is impossible.
The fact that the so-called flaw (a desired feature by others) is easily correctable or relatively inexpensive to fix is an irrelevant factor if FA's targeted customer base doesn't want it. If FA doesn't sell what its main customer base doesn't want or desire, they will not be doing their job.
A target gun or a bullseye gun can be bought by anybody, despite the fact that an AD/ND is more possible than a regular gun due to its light, short travel trigger.
In your world, a company needs to qualify or license people based on a particular features.
In your world, a special qualified-to-buy licensing would be required for target guns so that the company can only sell target guns to qualified target gun people.
Another different special qualified-to-buy licensing would be required for SAA guns w/o transfer bar to SAA people.
All because to protect consumers who choose not to be informed and responsible for their own actions.
How reasonable is that?
--John
joab said:
joab, most companies sell products which are targeted for special market segment (particular class/type of consumers). However, with few exceptions, people are free to buy any product they choose.
The fact that the product is designed for one market segment doesn't mean the company needs to restrict the sales of their product to only people who qualify and are knowledgeable. The onus for knowing the product that they buy is on the buyer, not the seller, as long as the seller doesn't make false claims such as the gun is safe to carry with all chambers loaded and AD/ND is impossible.
The fact that the so-called flaw (a desired feature by others) is easily correctable or relatively inexpensive to fix is an irrelevant factor if FA's targeted customer base doesn't want it. If FA doesn't sell what its main customer base doesn't want or desire, they will not be doing their job.
A target gun or a bullseye gun can be bought by anybody, despite the fact that an AD/ND is more possible than a regular gun due to its light, short travel trigger.
In your world, a company needs to qualify or license people based on a particular features.
In your world, a special qualified-to-buy licensing would be required for target guns so that the company can only sell target guns to qualified target gun people.
Another different special qualified-to-buy licensing would be required for SAA guns w/o transfer bar to SAA people.
All because to protect consumers who choose not to be informed and responsible for their own actions.
How reasonable is that?
--John
theinvisibleheart
New member
WA/Ken, more research: litigation kills new products
WA/Ken,
I did more research and also rethought about the issue.
There are at least 3 product areas in which litigation has killed or decreased product innovation (creation of new products) due to cost of litigation or potential litigation.
1. aviation industry as previously mentioned.
The reason for that is that the manufacturer can be sued if the pilot did not carry adequate insurance to compensate the victims.
So if the pilot crashed the plane due to his own negligence, passengers can still sue the manufacturer if the pilot did not carry enough insurance.
2. Rx drugs
Drug companies get sued for alleged side effects and product defects of new drugs even though they passed FDA approval process. Cost of litigation results in withdrawal of already approved drugs as well as less money for research and development required for new drugs.
3. birth control devices(BCD)
Lawsuits against BCD such as Norplant and IUDs have resulted in killing the research into new contraceptives. During last decade, only 3 new contraceptives (all based on variation of existing technology) came into the market.
Furthermore, because defense against litigation eats into profit, U.S. companies today spend 20X more on new cosmetics then research into new contraceptives.
How much sense does it make to pour money into new products if you knew the odds of being sued are much higher for contraceptives compared to cosmetics? Remember, defense against lawsuits cost money even if you win, and company has to make profit in order to survive.
Lawyers almost killed domestic U.S. vaccine manufacturers:
Finally, I wonder if the reason why triggers on so many guns today are so horrendous is due to fear of litigation?
--John
Wildalaska said:
WA/Ken,
I did more research and also rethought about the issue.
There are at least 3 product areas in which litigation has killed or decreased product innovation (creation of new products) due to cost of litigation or potential litigation.
1. aviation industry as previously mentioned.
The reason for that is that the manufacturer can be sued if the pilot did not carry adequate insurance to compensate the victims.
So if the pilot crashed the plane due to his own negligence, passengers can still sue the manufacturer if the pilot did not carry enough insurance.
2. Rx drugs
Drug companies get sued for alleged side effects and product defects of new drugs even though they passed FDA approval process. Cost of litigation results in withdrawal of already approved drugs as well as less money for research and development required for new drugs.
3. birth control devices(BCD)
Lawsuits against BCD such as Norplant and IUDs have resulted in killing the research into new contraceptives. During last decade, only 3 new contraceptives (all based on variation of existing technology) came into the market.
Furthermore, because defense against litigation eats into profit, U.S. companies today spend 20X more on new cosmetics then research into new contraceptives.
How much sense does it make to pour money into new products if you knew the odds of being sued are much higher for contraceptives compared to cosmetics? Remember, defense against lawsuits cost money even if you win, and company has to make profit in order to survive.
Lawyers almost killed domestic U.S. vaccine manufacturers:
2003 Trial Lawyers said:
Finally, I wonder if the reason why triggers on so many guns today are so horrendous is due to fear of litigation?
--John
Last edited:
theinvisibleheart
New member
WA, medical malpractice
people respond to incentives and to competitive forces. Here are some facts:
1. more than half of all physicians have being sued.
2. the rate of medical malpractice tort have risen faster than medical insurance premium or medical-care inflation rate for last 20+ years.
3. b/w 2000-2002, medical malpractice insurance rates have risen 30-75%, depending on the area.
4. in 2002, 3 of the top 10 awards were in the range of $80M-$94.5M (M=million).
I don't know about you but most people don't earn $100M over their lifetimes. In fact, average lifetime earning is fraction of that.
Quite often, in a small medical clinic, cost of malpractice insurance premium is the largest cost apart from the doctor's salary (you are talking $60,000 and up).
If medical malpractice litigation reflect on the doctor's incompetency, then:
1. doctors must be getting more and more incompetent as years go by, because medical litigation amounts keep on going up and more and more doctors are being sued.
2. whenever you visit any doctor, odds are that doctor has being sued, and if being sued, means the doctor is incompetent, then you choose to be treated by an incompetent doctor.
3. doctors must be suddenly getting competent in states which have enacted caps on medical malpractice awards because the number of medical malpractice lawsuits goes down in those states after caps are enacted.
4. doctors in NYC and Long Island must be particularly incompetent since juries in those states tend to award huge medical malpractice awards.
5. urban doctors must be particularly incompetent because urban juries are prone to mega-awards like $80M-$100M range.
--John
Wildalaska said:
people respond to incentives and to competitive forces. Here are some facts:
1. more than half of all physicians have being sued.
2. the rate of medical malpractice tort have risen faster than medical insurance premium or medical-care inflation rate for last 20+ years.
3. b/w 2000-2002, medical malpractice insurance rates have risen 30-75%, depending on the area.
4. in 2002, 3 of the top 10 awards were in the range of $80M-$94.5M (M=million).
I don't know about you but most people don't earn $100M over their lifetimes. In fact, average lifetime earning is fraction of that.
Quite often, in a small medical clinic, cost of malpractice insurance premium is the largest cost apart from the doctor's salary (you are talking $60,000 and up).
If medical malpractice litigation reflect on the doctor's incompetency, then:
1. doctors must be getting more and more incompetent as years go by, because medical litigation amounts keep on going up and more and more doctors are being sued.
2. whenever you visit any doctor, odds are that doctor has being sued, and if being sued, means the doctor is incompetent, then you choose to be treated by an incompetent doctor.
3. doctors must be suddenly getting competent in states which have enacted caps on medical malpractice awards because the number of medical malpractice lawsuits goes down in those states after caps are enacted.
4. doctors in NYC and Long Island must be particularly incompetent since juries in those states tend to award huge medical malpractice awards.
5. urban doctors must be particularly incompetent because urban juries are prone to mega-awards like $80M-$100M range.
--John
Last edited:
- Status