Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

[theinvisibleheart]

Stage 2, post #239

One persons flaw is another persons jewel. Thats why in the day and age of fuel injection, holley and edelbrock still make millions selling carburetors. Furthermore, loading 5 is only for carry and not for use. These are not defensive pistols, these are plinking pistols, target shooters and possibly hunting pistols. If a person desires a pistol that is safe with 6 rounds then they have that option. If a person buys an FA pistol then they do so with the warning that carry with 6 isn't safe.

Because YOU disagree with it doesn't mean that there are many consumers that prefer a non transfer bar SA. Hoards of people in SASS use these firearms. Collecters purchase these firearms specifically because you have to load 5. This is the issue you are missing. There is a market specifically for non-transfer bar pistols. By definition, something cannot be a design flaw when it is something consumers specifically request.

what you are saying is that FA specifically made the gun for its intended market segment, people who prefer not to have transfer bar.

If this was resolved through the market and not through litigation, market would have come up with solution equivalent to retro-fit transfer bar solution. Although, obviously plaintiff would have being better served by buying a SAA with transfer bar from other manufacturers or FA models that had transfer bar.

It would be a shame if this model gets changed as a result of this lawsuit. If FA discontinued the product line w/o transfer bar as a result of this litigation, it's the market segment (people who doesn't want transfer bar) who will suffer.

But personally, I'm surprised that FA has not settled out of court. I suspect the legal cost might be higher than the jury award. Depending on the size of FA, I would not be surprised if they delay or stop hiring new employees or lay off employees due to the cost of this litigation.

--John

 

[theinvisibleheart]

farscott, post #240

Still, FA lost the lawsuit, and I suspect the FA 83 will be retired and replaced with the FA 07, which will be the FA 83 with a transfer bar.

if that happened due to this product litigation, that would be a shame. All the people who wanted FA SAA w/o transfer bar will suffer.

--John

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Then an intelligent person would not make the comment that if you don't out the key in lock on any truck it will start without a key

Fords required the key be in lock before the key could be removed where as GM did not. Therefore GM is defective. An inteligent person would make the comment that had he treated the gun as if it was loaded (which it clearly was) none of this would have happened. I personaly had a rifle go off unexpectedly. I closed the bolt and it went bang. I could have shot myself in the foot and sued the maker? But did I? No, becuase unlike the person in the story, I practise a little known thing called MUZZLE CONTROL. I realise that is "extraordinary measures" But I go over board sometimes about saftey.

If putting the key in the lock position is beyond what is ordinary for securing a vehicle, in that it is unique to that particular design, then it would indeed be an extra ordinary effort

So does that mean you are going to sue GM?

 

[threegun]

We have two sides on this board (although one seems bigger than the other thankfully). Those who accept and understand personal responsibility and those that don't. The former group will never be convinced because we understand that as consumers we are responsible for doing what it takes to safely operate our chosen product. The latter group will never be convinced because by definition they are not personally responsible and thus something else must to blame. The change in thinking from personally responsible to it wasn't my fault began in the late 60's and has spread like wildfire. Thank god it didn't affect my parents who raised me up with the proper mindset. I am doing the same with my kids.

One thing I noticed a few years ago. My kids always seek to blame other things or people for anything they do wrong. I talked to my parents and other friends with children and they all said thats what kids do. That they have to teach them the proper way. I suspect parents are to blame for many of these folks who refuse to accept personal responsibility.......of course this blame game they will never play.

 

[Wildalaska]

We have two sides on this board (although one seems bigger than the other thankfully). Those who accept and understand personal responsibility and those that don't.

Actually we have one side that understands the complex nature of tort law in a economic, societal and legal sense and one side who doesnt. Unfortunately, the side that cant or wont understand is bigger, but WILL get smaller as folks start looking beyond sloganeering and get into the depths of reality.

Acceptance of personal responsibility has nothing to do with it. One can accept, understand and even desire personal responsibility yet still understand and accept the tort systems, flawed as they may be.

Remember its just a gun, not ones....

WildgoreadprosserontortsandgetbacktomeAlaska

 

[threegun]

WA,

Unfortunately, the side that cant or wont understand is bigger, but WILL get smaller as folks start looking beyond sloganeering and get into the depths of reality.

Acceptance of personal responsibility has nothing to do with it. One can accept, understand and even desire personal responsibility yet still understand and accept the tort systems, flawed as they may be.

Its flawed because of people who lack personal responsibility are awarding judgments to those who lack personal responsibility. Thats the point.

 

[STAGE 2]

I hate Prosser, but I hated Farnsworth even more. Consider me a Learned Hand groupie.

 

[Let it Bleed]

David G. Owen's Products Liability Law hornbook is excellent if interested in that sort of thing. :barf:

It's not my fault if it's not excellent.

 

[Wildalaska]

Its flawed because of people who lack personal responsibility are awarding judgments to those who lack personal responsibility. Thats the point.

So what your saying is that without fail, a jury who makes an award based on the facts and laws presented to them, which laws have been developed for 500 plus years, lack personal responsibility.

I see the obutitsagunsonoonedareeventhinkithasaproblem crowd is gonna sink to denigrating thousands and thousands of Americans....:barf:

WildpsihavebeeninplsuitsonbothsidesoftheisleandstatementslikethataretotallyignorantAlaska

 

[joab]

these are plinking pistols, target shooters and possibly hunting pistols.

I find it hard to digest a 454 as a target or plinking pistol
It is advertised as a hunting pistol so I don't get the "possibly" in that statement

If a person buys an FA pistol then they do so with the warning that carry with 6 isn't safe.

Thank you

Because YOU disagree with it doesn't mean that there are many consumers that prefer a non transfer bar SA.

Here we go gettin all personal again
I happen to be one of those people that intentionally bought a SAA, not the adulterated Ruger design
I bought it for one reason I wanted a pure example of a historical gun

By definition, something cannot be a design flaw when it is something consumers specifically request.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous a flaw is a flaw whether it is sought after or not
Can you show me that definition anywhere
The design has a history of death and maiming based on a correctable feature in that design, that by definition is a design flaw

Thats because the defense let the plaintiff frame the argument.

Total speculation on your part

Personally I have several reasons.

All those reason appear to be emotional rather than practical
You are anti litigation, you think that somehow a Ruger without a transfer bar looks and cleans differently than the improved version, which simply isn't true, and you haven't shot yourself so nobody should complain if they do

The important thing isn't whether everyone agrees with all of this. The important thing is that the defense team had hoards of things to work with and 2 burdens in their favor. Thats a lopsided battle.

And the plaintiff had only to make one point to the jury that the defense could not dispute
The gun was unsafe as designed and the company knew or should have known it

The point that you are missing or are skewing is that my opinion does not matter
I happen to like my true SAA clone, nowhere have I said that the guy was right to sue or that he should be held blameless while the company should be held totally liable for the accident

My point is simple
We live in a litigious society anybody that doesn't know that has not been paying attention
For any company head to put out a product with a known safety issue is irresponsible to their primary duty, protecting the company and the share holders
And has severely jeopardized the main goal of business
The acquisition and maintainence of customers

 

[joab]

Its flawed because of people who lack personal responsibility are awarding judgments to those who lack personal responsibility. Thats the point.

It's flawed because we don't hold the person who authorized a design with a known history of defect personally responsible

so FA should not be faulted for choosing the single-action platform.

They marketed the gun, it's their baby

And Casull started long before the Ruger New Model Blackhawk was a twinkle in Bill Ruger's eye. I believe Casull was experimenting in the 1950's, blowing up more than a few Model P's in the process. FA characterized the gun for production once Casull had created his monster magnum

The first FA came off the line in 1983 a full ten years after the transfer bar was introduced,

An inteligent person would make the comment that had he treated the gun as if it was loaded (which it clearly was) none of this would have happened.

The gun was in his holster how was he not treating it as if it was loaded. How is having it HOLSTERED not keeping the muzzle in a safe direction
Do you even have a clue about what this discussion is about

Fords required the key be in lock before the key could be removed where as GM did not

Yeah, that was my point
You are literally all over the place with your "points"
Please go read at least the original post before commenting any more

This is a long discussion you can't just jump in in the middle and here and there and expect to be up to speed

 

[STAGE 2]

If a person buys an FA pistol then they do so with the warning that carry with 6 isn't safe.

Thank you

The same way that carry with a series 70 1911 hammer down isn't safe. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't go so far as to say that the series 70 is a flawed design since its the most sought after version of the 1911.

The point of these being target/hunting pistols is that people have different expectations and critera for these pistols than they would a defensive pistol such as a glock or HK. As such, downloading 1 for extended carry doesn't have the same impact as it would in a service or defensive pistol.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous a flaw is a flaw whether it is sought after or not
Can you show me that definition anywhere
The design has a history of death and maiming based on a correctable feature in that design, that by definition is a design flaw

No, a flaw is something in a product that is unwanted by a consumer which makes the product unreasonably dangerous or defective. A perfect example (and which numerous suits have resulted from) is a blade guard on a saw. The customer is purchasing the saw to cut wood. It will do this with or without the blade guard. However without, there is an extreme risk of injury which isn't really preventable by anything other than the blade guard.

An SA revolver is distinctly different because it is usually wanted and is not UNREASONABLY dangerous or defective. Thats the standard that the plaintiff had to show. A product can be dangerous or even defective but if its not unreasonably so then there isn't a problem. A SA revolver isn't unreasonably dangerous because unlike the saw, downloading 5 removes any danger with carry.

Total speculation on your part

True, but given the nature of this case, its very likely.

All those reason appear to be emotional rather than practical
You are anti litigation, you think that somehow a Ruger without a transfer bar looks and cleans differently than the improved version, which simply isn't true, and you haven't shot yourself so nobody should complain if they do

I'm a lawyer. As for the rest, none of that really has anything to do with the law involved in this case. There is a large market for traditional SA revolvers. People buy them specifically for the solid firing pin and specifically because they don't have a transfer bar. As such, when a consumer specifically seeks out one of these revolvers despite the fact that they have a variety of transfer bar choices available, and the pistol in question is accompanied by a variety of lawyer labels, they have assumed the risk.

And the plaintiff had only to make one point to the jury that the defense could not dispute
The gun was unsafe as designed and the company knew or should have known it

Here's where you're wrong. Like I illustrated before the standard is unreasonably dangerous or defective. Unsafe doesn't cut it. While a traditional SA revolver may be less safe than a transfer bar revolver, its not unreasonably dangerous. Add to this the fact that under the law guns are assumed to be inherent'y dangerous objects and the user is presumed to have assumed the risk, the plaintiff had a very long way to go to get a judgement.

For any company head to put out a product with a known safety issue is irresponsible to their primary duty, protecting the company and the share holders

But when the known safety issue IS the product then you can't reconcile that. There are plenty of unsafe dangerous products out there that have been deemed lawsuit proof simply because the extent of the danger is obvious and to remove the danger would be to render the product obsolete. That is exactly the case here. When you get rid of the action then you eliminate one of the major reasons consumer bought the product in the first place.

 

[threegun]

So what your saying is that without fail, a jury who makes an award based on the facts and laws presented to them, which laws have been developed for 500 plus years, lack personal responsibility.

What I am saying WA is that prior to the 60 liberal movement people didn't even consider suing for something they knew was a problem/risk whatever because they knew about the problem. If they had sued back then the jury would have laughed and called them dumb. This is a gin clear case of transferring the blame. Since the victim violated the method of carry prescribed by the factory all else is moot. Unless of course the jury lacks personal responsibility themselves. Then they award the victim for something the factory told him not to do. It is really very simple.

As for those who believe the design is flawed don't buy one. Get the transfer bar version.

I will say this IF YOU BUY THE "DESIGN FLAWED" VERSION AND SUE AFTER AN ACCIDENT YOU ARE A PERSON WHO LACKS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

If you are a juror and award a man money for breaking a major carry rule with the firearm then you lack personal responsibility.

Definition of responsible:1 : the quality or state of being responsible : as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability
2 : something for which one is responsible : BURDEN <has neglected his responsibilities>

We can argue until blue in the face about "design flaws" but this guy broke a rule specified by the factory that if followed mitigates any "design flaw" rendering the gun "design flaw" LESS.

 

[Wildalaska]

What I am saying WA is that prior to the 60 liberal movement people didn't even consider suing for something they knew was a problem/risk whatever because they knew about the problem. If they had sued back then the jury would have laughed and called them dumb.

So what you are saying is products liability law based on negligence didnlt exist prior to the 60s ?

If you are a juror and award a man money for breaking a major carry rule with the firearm then you lack personal responsibility.

The world is so simple in black and white, neh?

WildowellhopefullysomefolksherewilldosomeaddtionalreadingAlaska

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

The gun was in his holster how was he not treating it as if it was loaded. How is having it HOLSTERED not keeping the muzzle in a safe direction

Well if he shot himself in the leg then it obviuosly was not pointed in a safe direction.

And for the record I am well aware of what this discussion is about. A guy shot himself in the leg and sued the maker becuase he thought a transfer bar is a subsitute for safe handling practises.

If all this BS with lawsuits keep going pretty soon we'll have computer controlled guns that ask "Are you sure?" before firing.

 

[joab]

The same way that carry with a series 70 1911 hammer down isn't safe. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't go so far as to say that the series 70 is a flawed design since its the most sought after version of the 1911.

Just as I'm willing to bet that you either didn't think that comment out completely or haven't been following this discussion very well
For the last time
A FA is not a 1911 why is this strawman repeatedly being brought in
A 1911 IS NOT BY DESIGN SUPPOSED TO BE CARRIED HAMMER DOWN ON A LOADED CHAMBER, THAT IS WHY THE SLIDE SAFETY IS THERE

It takes extra ordinary measures to get the hammer down on a live round with a 1911, get it now

As such, downloading 1 for extended carry doesn't have the same impact as it would in a service or defensive pistol.

Doesn't change the fact that is not possibly a hunting gun but more like probably since that is how it is advertised
I have heard no one even imply that it was designed as a defensive gun
And that still doesn't change the fact that it cannot be loaded to full capacity as it is design to do, except for that one flaw

No, a flaw is something in a product that is unwanted by a consumer which makes the product unreasonably dangerous or defective.

Show me the definition of flaw that says that
If you leave out the part about being unwanted then you are probably much closer to what you are going to find

An SA revolver is distinctly different because it is usually wanted and is not UNREASONABLY dangerous or defective. Thats the standard that the plaintiff had to show. A product can be dangerous or even defective but if its not unreasonably so then there isn't a problem. A SA revolver isn't unreasonably dangerous because unlike the saw, downloading 5 removes any danger with carry.

There are twelve people that just gave a man $300,000 that disagree with you along with those 600 dead people

People buy them specifically for the solid firing pin and specifically because they don't have a transfer bar.

That doesn't change the fact that when I asked you basically what were the advantages of the non TB model all you could give was emotional not practical reasoning
And by the way, my research , which may be flawed , tells me that Ruger was not sued into the transfer bar
It cames as a result of a CEO recognizing the first goal of business and the first responsibility of a CEO

Unsafe doesn't cut it. While a traditional SA revolver may be less safe than a transfer bar revolver, its not unreasonably dangerous.

Should I read the award to you

But when the known safety issue IS the product then you can't reconcile that.

The known safety issue is NOT the product, the issue is that the product was not made to the safety standards that were reasonably available at the time for that design

When you get rid of the action then you eliminate one of the major reasons consumer bought the product in the first place.

Did Ruger BlackHawk sales slump when they added a transfer bar
Can you cite the source that shows that people bought the gun because it lacks a TB or did they do it in spite of the fact that it lacks a TB and they just wanted a strong 454 revolver in a SA format, which the TB model would certainly have sufficed

You introduce much speculation but very little strong proof for your argument

Well if he shot himself in the leg then it obviously was not pointed in a safe direction.

Are you saying that holstering a gun is a violation of the four (or three) rules?

And for the record I am well aware of what this discussion is about. A guy shot himself in the leg and sued the maker becuase he thought a transfer bar is a subsitute for safe handling practises.

You might want to run through the complaint one more time
Here's a hint
Holstered gun, leather jacket

And please please tell me which one of the rules is Bianchi and Galco blatantly promoting violating
I really want to hear this one
Cause so far you are helping so much to prove my point

 

[TEDDY]

Sa

funny the design goes back to before the civil war.is it that gun owners are more stupid than old time gun owners.now ruger did not introduce the transfer bar first.Iver Johnson introduced it in early 1900s in this country.why bash FA colt could have used it.cases like this would have been thrown out of court before ww2.the dumbing down of the people began about then.why did winchester put safety on lever guns 1894 to 1990?they did just fine.blame somebody for stupitity.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Joab, There are none so blind as those who can't see. As I said and as did a few others if someone buys a product be it a firearm or anything else. it is the duty of the consumer to know the working of it. A design flaw is just a defect under a different name correct? How can it be a flaw if it was specificly designed that. Remind me never to take you to the gun range with me. Have fun putting gun makers out of business though. With that I'm done with you. I hope that some day you will begin to see that it not someone else's fault when you screw. Until then, So long

Shotgun,

 

[STAGE 2]

Just as I'm willing to bet that you either didn't think that comment out completely or haven't been following this discussion very well
For the last time
A FA is not a 1911 why is this strawman repeatedly being brought in
A 1911 IS NOT BY DESIGN SUPPOSED TO BE CARRIED HAMMER DOWN ON A LOADED CHAMBER, THAT IS WHY THE SLIDE SAFETY IS THERE

It takes extra ordinary measures to get the hammer down on a live round with a 1911, get it now

You're missing the point entirely. The 1911 may "by design" not supposed to be carried hammer down on a loaded chamber, but it can be, and there isn't anything stopping people from doing so except for a bunch of lawyer labels in the manual and common sense.

Furthermore you assume that the SA was designed to be carried with 6. For all we know it may have been designed to be carried with 5 and only loaded with 6 when needed. Given the vast majority of cowboys who carried in this fashion this may very well have been the case.

Either way, the point is that both firearms have the potential to be equally unsafe when used by idiots or people that don't heed warnings, yet no one would ever call the 1911 a "flawed" design.

And that still doesn't change the fact that it cannot be loaded to full capacity as it is design to do, except for that one flaw

Baloney. You can load it to capacity all you like. Just don't be riding a horse or a bike when fully loaded.

Show me the definition of flaw that says that
If you leave out the part about being unwanted then you are probably much closer to what you are going to find

I don't need to, its basic tort law.

There are twelve people that just gave a man $300,000 that disagree with you along with those 600 dead people

Not quite sure where you got the 600 dead folks, but as far as the 12 jurors go, depending on the jurisdiction not all 12 may have agreed. Regardless however, this all goes back to my point about the attorneys slacking for FA. A jury verdict is not a maesure of what happened, merely a measure of who better argued their case.

That doesn't change the fact that when I asked you basically what were the advantages of the non TB model all you could give was emotional not practical reasoning

Again, baloney. A traditional action IS easier to detail strip. A traditional action IS easier to work on. A traditional action has less moving parts and a less likely chance to malfunction. Those are hardly emotional responses.

The known safety issue is NOT the product, the issue is that the product was not made to the safety standards that were reasonably available at the time for that design

And this is why you keep missing the boat. The traditional action IS the product. For the same reasons the people seek out series 70 colts as opposed to series 80 or whatever else, people choose a traditional SA action over the transfer bar counterpart.

You can't make that design safer without altering the design. Its simply impossible. The law takes this into account when they discuss safer alternative designs. In order for a plaintiff to recover from a design defect, there must be a safer alternative design that is technologically feasible, economically feasible, and does not defeat the purpose of the original product. One of the major purposes of the original product was to be a high end traditional SA revolver. You can't have a traditional SA revolver and have a transfer bar.

I have a feeling that FA's attorneys didn't make this argument. They should have becuase it puts the plaintiff in a very narrow playing field of trying to show how to make the design safer without changing the design.

At the end of the day however it all comes down to one thing. Was this revolver unreasonably dangerous or defective. Is it unreasonable to tell people to carry with only 5? Absolutely not. By doing so, the revolver is equally as safe as any transfer bar equipped pistol. Bear in mind this has nothing to do with actually shooting the pistol. Load with 6 all day long for shooting. Its carry that presents the danger.

Thus to support your position you have to believe that its unreasonable to expect people to do something that they have already been doing for well over 100 years, long before warning labels and instruction manuals came with guns. With the issue (properly) framed as such, I don't think thats an argument you'd want to make to a jury counselor.

 

[threegun]

So what you are saying is products liability law based on negligence didnlt exist prior to the 60s ?

Come on WA. Sure there were product liability suits back then. What I am saying is that back then the product had to be to blame for the negligence. A Colt saa exploding or the sear breaking and releasing the hammer without the trigger being pulled etc. would be negligent.

Try to follow this WA. The consumer not following warnings for proper carry then suing for the damage caused by his own negligence is what I am referring to. Also the jury who gives a man money for an accident which was caused by his not following proper carry instructions listed in the owners manual and also well known for over a century. Both above lack personal responsibility.