Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

[theinvisibleheart]

WA, tort cost and capitalism

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.

Product litigation doesn't produce anything. Not only that, rise in tort costs have outpaced both inflation and GDP growth.

Tort cost behave like taxes and product regulation, both of which are enemies of capitalism and free market.

As of 2003,

1. tort costs exceed $200B (B=Billion) annually
2. it's more than 2% of U.S. GDP
3. tort cost in U.S. are substantially higher than other developed nation
4. in 2001, tort costs grew by 14.3%
5. over the last 30 years, tort costs grew at an annualized rate of 9.1% compared to CPI(measure of inflation) at 5%, U.S. population at 1.1%, and GDP at 7.6%

Capitalism made our country wealthy. Tort is doing the exact opposite, except for lawyers.

--John

 

[threegun]

Instead of demanding manufacturers make things idiot proof perhaps we should demand that our children understand the concept of personal responsibility and give them a course in critical thinking.

 

[Wildalaska]

OK John hold off my friend, if you are relying on statistics, where are you getting them from.

I can skew em either way ya know

WildtheoldstatsgameAlaska

 

[Wildalaska]

Instead of demanding manufacturers make things idiot proof perhaps we should demand that our children understand the concept of personal responsibility and give them a course in critical thinking.

I'm gonna bite my tongue.

WildevolutionAlaska

 

[STAGE 2]

Not having read anything, I assume this was a products liability suit. If so, I'm curious how the plaintiffs overcame the presumption that firearms carry of being an inherently dangerous product.

Edit: the guy recovered 300k so maybe the defense team did do their job. Though there was clearly room for improvement.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

WA/Ken, 6 sources

OK John hold off my friend, if you are relying on statistics, where are you getting them from.

I can skew em either way ya know

WA/Ken,

I used 6 sources:

1. Trial Lawyers, Inc. (www.triallawyersinc.com) but they used the data from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN REPORT 2003 and 2002 Medical Economics survey.

TILLINGHAST-TOWERS is a consulting firm. I've used their data when I was in graduate school, doing research in finance.

2. Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. think tank (www.cato.org).

3. Hoovers Institute, Stanford think tank (www.hoover.org).

4. aviation industry---I talked to an aeronautics professor and people who used aviation services.

5. I've talked to medical professionals. 2 medical doctors who owned medical clinics in different states.

The first doctor told me that she has being sued but the insurance company settled out of court because it was cheaper to settle than to fight it even if it was baseless. The first doctor told me that all the doctors she knew has being sued. She also told me what the medical malpractice premium was.

The second doctor told me that he has never being sued but all the doctors he knew has being sued. He told me he just thinks he was lucky.

I've also confirmed what I know by talking to other medical professionals.

6. Personal experiences: I'm a former Silicon Valley development engineer. The company I worked for was sued unjustly but after couple of years, they settled out of court because it was cheaper that way.

Obviously, this put strain on money for new product development because litigation cost are very, very costly.

7. so what is your qualification and sources?


--John

 

[theinvisibleheart]

WA/Ken, PS

OK John hold off my friend, if you are relying on statistics, where are you getting them from.

I can skew em either way ya know

PS
I've being studying the field of public choices for several years before graduate school but even w/o any background, just based on common sense, following should be apparent:

1. a business defending itself against litigation needs to spend money for legal cost.

2. Litigation cost means less money for other activities, including product development cost.

3. If I have a choice between putting money into product which has high probability of being litigated against such as BCD(Birth Control Devices) vs. cosmetics (low probability of being sued), which should I choose?

Especially, if the bottom line or even the survivality of the company may be critically damaged by potential lawsuit?

4. some product such as vaccines and Rx drugs almost always have some side effects. The money for defending oneself against potential lawsuits has to come from limited fund that could be used to develop new product. Companies don't have unlimited funds.

--John

 

[Let it Bleed]

Although a little dated and not specifically on topic, I thought the following presents a reasonably fair assessment of a problem that cannot simply be blamed on any particular group or profession.
http://www.nashp.org/Files/gnl48_medical_malpractice.PDF

Also of note is the fact that legal malpractice premiums are skyrocketing in cost as well. Insurance companies never lose.

See also http://www.progressivereform.org/perspectives/medical_malpractice.cfm and http://www.progressivereform.org/perspectives/tortReform.cfm
While I am pleased that Congress carved an exception for the firearms industry for my own selfish reasons, it simply demonstrates the political clout firearm enthusiasts wield in the political arena.

An October 11, 2002 article from the Denver Post describes how that "Insurance companies have exaggerated the impact of malpractice claims to increase doctors' premiums." The article further reported how:

Once adjusted for inflation, insurance company losses linked to malpractice payments have remained stable over the last 30 years, according to the study. So, there is no truth to insurance and medical industry claims that an explosion in jury awards has fostered an escalation in physician premiums in some states, the study said.

Similarly, an article published June 24, 2002 in the conservative Wall Street Journal blames insurers' bad accounting and greed as having a "big effect on premiums." It states that when the bull market ended in 2000, investment gains that had covered up bad insurance practices disappeared. As a result, some doctors' medical malpractice insurance premiums sky-rocketed even though "doctors and hospitals win [medical malpractice lawsuits] about 62% of the time."

The Wall Street Journal article reported that "Some doctors are beginning to acknowledge that the conventional focus on jury awards deflects attention from the insurance industry's behavior. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for the first time is conceding that carriers' business practices have contributed to the current problem...." A CEO of a leading medical malpractice insurer was quoted as stating: "I don't like to hear insurance-company executives say it's the tort [injury-law] system -- it's self-inflicted."

Hence, the sky is not falling.

 

[joab]

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?

Is there an 800hp funny car that is designed and marketed for street use?
If not then you would not be using the car according to it's design now would you?
If use with in the specification of it's marketed design then it is fully appropriate to push that pedal and make it go
If not used according to it's specified design you would be held liable for misusing the product.

If the car were design with a pedal to make it go but pushing that pedal more than 80% created the very real possibility of injury for the user then the manufacturer would be held liable since the fix would be simple and cost effective.
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.

Is there a suitable gas relief systme on the market that would eliminate the danger of explosion while not adversely effecting the environment that is cost effective and readily available such as say a transfer bar on a SA revolver?

You make inane points and should go take a critical thinking class.

Back atcha
Your points are not relevant to the transfer bar and in no way counter the fact that a better ,safer, cost effective system is available that will allow the FA to be safely used as it is designed

But nobody aswers his questions LOL.

He did?, where?

 

[Wildalaska]

I am gonna call Spiff, let him chime in here about insurance.

And moi...I say one word....reserve....remember that one...do I need to explain it?

WildinsurancecompaniesmakeplaintiffsattorneyslooklikenunsAlaska

 

[joab]

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.

Still hung up on a word huh?
Look it up. if you don't like that one find a synonym and stop this simplistic juvenile harping on a word that you do not understand

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.

I guess you didn't see the part about a better safer, cost effective method being available to make the gun safe to be carried as designed

What has changed since 1873?

See above or many of the other posts I have made answering this very question

Now we have thinkers like Joab. Can't understand that the consumer was negligent.

Do you think if you repeat a lie enough it will become truth
Show me where I have said that the user was not negligent) I can show you where I have not) I have asked you this before but once again you run from a request to prove your lie
Some of the more honest readers will see that I have repeatedly held the user accountable, from my first post

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.

Again with the inane and already refuted 1911 comparison
The 1911 is safe to carry fully loaded as it is designed, you might notice that thing on the side of the frame that is DESIGNED to lock the gun up and prevent ADs

Current or even safer designs are not the issue
A verifiablye unsafe, antiquated and obsolete design is

Critical thinking LOL

Back atcha my emotion driven friend

check out post 187
It is a response to your supposed shredding of my argument

Critical thinking indeed

And while we are at it how about a response to my answer to your first lie

Why do you keep bringing things up and then run away we I refute them?
Kinda disingenuous, dont'cha think

 

[joab]

STAGE 2

In a nutshell
Plaintiff was carrying a Freedom Arms 454 in a holster
He took off his coat and it caught the hammer pulling it back far enough to discharge the round under the hammer and shot his leg off

Plaintiff was seeking $10,000,000
Jury awarded $600,000 because they felt that the gun was not as safe as it should be or could be

The Plaintiff was awarded $300,000 because they found that he was 50% responsible

 

[spacemanspiff]

Holy Guacamole, give me some warning next time. I'm still not awake, guess playing DD for a carload of nubile 22 yr old ladies takes its toll on me.

So, bring me up to speed, I read through the thread as well as I can for my homeschooled brain. We are discussing whether or not Freedom Arms anticipated, or should have at least, the misuse of their product, and whether or not they should have been held liable for it?

Let me know if i am addressing the wrong part of this discussion, I'm just going to jump into one part of the pool and work my way around till I've polluted the whole deep end, okay?

A key phrase that everyone should be familiar with is 'Diligent Effort'. FA, as well as any manufacturer of any product that has potential to be harmful, must make a diligent effort to warn consumers and advise them of how to use the product in the safest manner possible. Many guns have etched into them 'Read User Manual Before Use'. Thats a 'diligent effort'. Their manual would have warning labels and flashy images designed to draw your attention to important facts or suggestions about the use of the product, also a 'diligent effort'. And maybe it will be printed in more than one language, yet another diligent effort.

When a manufacturer, makes every possible effort to inform the consumer of the hazards involved, they have done their duty. You can't force a consumer to read a manual, but you can try to. If the consumer is unwilling, thats on them.

And maybe I overlooked it, but if the argument being presented is really "FA should expect to pay out multimillion dollar settlements and should adjust their prices accordingly", then I cannot help but laugh.
Products liability is very expensive, for small outfits, it can be cost prohibitive. And for those who do purchase the coverage, they are typically smart enough to make sure the policy has limits that can cover anything bad happening. Includes getting an Excess/Umbrella to go over the primary coverages.
And should a claim be filed, and the company ordered to pay, it doesnt necessarily mean their premiums will rise. Its not the same as your auto insurance that raises with each accident or speeding ticket.

Okay, i'm done with this much thinking for today. I'll check in tomorrow.

 

[Wildalaska]

And remember boys and girls, our beloved gun owning tacticalfatbeatingthechicksoffwithastickninjaspiff is a representative of the *****gasp**** insurance industry....

Absorb his wisdom in whatever he says here.

WildhestheexpertimnotAlaska

 

[threegun]

I guess you didn't see the part about a better safer, cost effective method being available to make the gun safe to be carried as designed

Just as you can't comprehend that if you buy a gun that isn't safer or better you assume the limitations it brings.

Still hung up on a word huh?
Look it up. if you don't like that one find a synonym and stop this simplistic juvenile harping on a word that you do not understand

Looked it up dude. Completely understand the word. Don't think the precaution fits any out of the norm/ordinary/ whatever. It is simply a normal action for that gun.

Do you think if you repeat a lie enough it will become truth
Show me where I have said that the user was not negligent) I can show you where I have not) I have asked you this before but once again you run from a request to prove your lie
Some of the more honest readers will see that I have repeatedly held the user accountable, from my first post

Yeah he was negligent you said so. Then spent the next fifty posts burning down FA and the SAA design. It doesn't matter if better safer designs are available and would have prevented this accident. The user messed up with the design he chose. It therefore cannot be the fault of FA which has been our point. Get it. It doesn't matter.

If a twig pulls the trigger on my Glock and the XD would have prevented it because of the grip safety....it doesn't matter.

 

[threegun]

Joab, OMG dude are you serious.....I just re read post 187 lol....

am sensible enough to read the directions on products I purchase and would be doubly sure to read the directions on a firearm since they are lethal weapons. Given the small amount of the judgment, I think the jury made it clear that the handling directions of the gun were not extraordinary (but clearly, the safety of the gun could be improved).

This is irrelevant. Many people choose the old "unsafe" design for whatever reason........can you understand this fact? The victim choose the "unsafe" model understand? The victim was negligent with the "unsafe" model. Why can you not comprehend this simple concept? Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[joab]

Just as you can't comprehend that if you buy a gun that isn't safer or better you assume the limitations it brings.

More twisting?
Show me where I do not understand the limitations of the gun
My entire argument has been based on the limitations of the gun
And again show me where I held the plaintiff blameless for not knowing the limitations of the gun ( I can show you where I didn't)

Then spent the next fifty posts burning down FA and the SAA design. It doesn't matter if better safer designs are available and would have prevented this accident. The user messed up with the design he chose. It therefore cannot be the fault of FA which has been our point. Get it. It doesn't matter.

Sorry but it is you that doesn't get it
Hell, you can't even stick to one point ( why won't you address my post 187 you started that line while do you now avoid it?)
But at least now you are at least admitting that it is a less safe and non better design (until next post)

And it does mean that the accident would not have happened the accident was a direct result of the design of the gun as much as it was a result of the users failure to understand his gun

If a twig pulls the trigger on my Glock and the XD would have prevented it because of the grip safety....it doesn't matter.

If a twig pulls the TRIGGER of your gun then you have failed to properly encase that gun as it is designed to be

You guys really need to work on your debate skills
The argument needs to be at least relevant to the discussion
We are not talking about Glocks or 1911s whose design prevents these types of ADs from happening
When used as designed the trigger must be pulled in order for the gun to fire
This is not the case with the FA, now is it?
Don't start with the "factory recommendation" they do not mitigate the design flaw itself
The gin was not designed according to these "factory recommendations"
The recommendation are made to circumvent a flaw that is now easy and cost effective to correct.

 

[threegun]

If a twig pulls the TRIGGER of your gun then you have failed to properly encase that gun as it is designed to be

If your Freedom Arms goes boom in your holster from your rubber jacket fanning the hammer then you have failed to follow the cardinal rule of SAA designed guns.
JUST LIKE THE GLOCK EXAMPLE

But to apply your thinking I could successfully sue Glock because a new design (the XD) would have prevented the accident.

your turn!

 

[STAGE 2]

STAGE 2

In a nutshell
Plaintiff was carrying a Freedom Arms 454 in a holster
He took off his coat and it caught the hammer pulling it back far enough to discharge the round under the hammer and shot his leg off

Plaintiff was seeking $10,000,000
Jury awarded $600,000 because they felt that the gun was not as safe as it should be or could be

The Plaintiff was awarded $300,000 because they found that he was 50% responsible

I understand all that. HOwever to recover under products liability, a plaintiff must show that a product was unreasonable dangerous or defective. This particular case was obviously a design defect.

What I don't understand is that things like guns, knives, and other items are placed in a special class of "inherently dangerous" objects, thus making the burden extremely high to overcome.

In my opinion it would be very difficult for an attorney to lose this case given what I know. FA should have hired a better gun (pardon the pun).

 

[joab]

What I don't understand is that things like guns, knives, and other items are placed in a special class of "inherently dangerous" objects, thus making the burden extremely high to overcome.

The jury found that FA did not use Spiff's due diligence and created an unreasonably unsafe firearm when better safer designs were readily available and commonly used and there fore were 50% responsible for the accident
They also found that FA did use due diligence in warning the public about the flaw in the design so they assigned the other 50% of the blame to the plaintif

All in all a good decision, as I have said repeatedly

But to apply your thinking I could successfully sue Glock because a new design (the XD) would have prevented the accident.

Only if the Glock used a proven unsafe design when a better safer design was reasonable available
Next

Why will you not addressed the points that you have already started
#187 is still waiting and so is that stupid lie

I have soundly refuted all of your "critical thinking"
I will not address any more from you until you go back and stick to the issues you have already brought up and run from once shredded
Or until you at least stick to one point throughout

Now you are saying that it is not safe to carry fully loaded that it is a cardinal rule not to do so
What happened to your statement that it was "quite safe" to do so?

Come on tell the truth
You're arguing just to argue aren't you.

I have constantly stuck to one point and defended it you are switching back and forth more than a lib presidential candidate