Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Such is life - you have summarized the conflict that appears on gun lists all the time. Many members believe in authority and absolutes. Even if the world doesn't work that way - it is thought that we should ignore what is known.

I agree that we should be held more responsible. I face it with students all the time - however, it boils down to the fact that a company needs to take care of its finances and better be smarter than just to spout an ideal behavior as compared to the actuality.

 

[Wildalaska]

product liability law is more severe in aviation industry AFAIK since it allows manufacturer to be sued if the operator's asset/insurance coverage was not adequate.

No, in point of fact, that works in ANY civil lawsuit...both ways.

Viz: Drunk Driver takes off from bar, toasted, and to avoid a person crossing the center line, rolls his jeep paralyzing sober girlfriend in front seat.

Girlfriend sues other driver, her boyfriend, bar and Jeep. Boyfriend counterclaims against other driver and jeep. Bar cross claims against Jeep and other driver, alleges assuption of risk/comparative negligence against girlfriend. Jeep cross claims against bar and other driver....anD so on.

ECONOMICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT! OUR TORT LAWS EQUAL A SOCIETAL JUDGEMENT AS TO ECONOMICS THAT SOME OF YOU GUYS ARE IGNORING!!!!!!!

And John, you too...change your focus from business propaganda and look at the economic reality of tort...

Somebody please tell me what it is before I bust a brain blood vessel

WA

 

[threegun]

WildA

Then it would be your negligence. Now how does that parallel with FA and my example?

you quit or what?

 

[Wildalaska]

wHO KNOWS i HAVE hk p7S ON THE BRAIN

WildweareinafrenzyAlaska

 

[threegun]

give it a squeeze for me LOL.

 

[2rugers]

Another GOOD example would be:

Pulling up to the gas pump, putting the nozzle in the car and lighting up your favorite unfiltered.

Now who to sue after the explosion:

1.The station (should'a made it idiot trespass proof)

2.The fuel provider (should'a made it non idiot flammable)

3.The fuel manufacturer (see above)

4.The pump manufacturer (should'a made it idiot proof)

5.The car manufacturer (should'a provided an intelligent Fuel Transfer Technician with every vehicle for the life of the vehicle)

6.The person who wrote the little sign saying not to smoke while dispensing fuel (shoulda made a sign idiot woulda actually read)

7.The fuel station architect (should'a designed a station that does not allow idiots to set themselves on fire)

8.The attendant (Should'a shut the pump off before the idiot set himself afire)

Or better than all the above:
HOW ABOUT HE MANUP FOR BEING A STUPID HORSE'S ASS AND TAKE HIS LUMPS LIKE HE SHOULD

 

[Wildalaska]

Bad example

WildseedefinitionofproximatecauseAlaska

See Kinsman Transit, I, Kinsman Transit II, Pfalsgraf v. LIRR, etc

 

[2rugers]

How so?

 

[Wildalaska]

Casuation.

WildstudyitAlaska

 

[2rugers]

Flatulation.

 

[2rugers]

segap3tsalehtgniwepsneebevahuoytahw noitalutalf dliw

 

[theinvisibleheart]

WA, tort are there because it's profitable

Wildalaska
Senior Member

Join Date: 11-25-2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 6,002

Quote:
product liability law is more severe in aviation industry AFAIK since it allows manufacturer to be sued if the operator's asset/insurance coverage was not adequate.
No, in point of fact, that works in ANY civil lawsuit...both ways.

Viz: Drunk Driver takes off from bar, toasted, and to avoid a person crossing the center line, rolls his jeep paralyzing sober girlfriend in front seat.

Girlfriend sues other driver, her boyfriend, bar and Jeep. Boyfriend counterclaims against other driver and jeep. Bar cross claims against Jeep and other driver, alleges assuption of risk/comparative negligence against girlfriend. Jeep cross claims against bar and other driver....anD so on.

In the aviation industry, even if the manufacturer is clearly not at fault and accident was caused by unforeseeable usage, manufacturer is liable if the pilot didn't carry enough insurance. So to use your example, if the driver intentionally drove off a cliff and didn't carry enough insurance to compensate for the harm done to the passenger, manufacturer is liable if automotive industry was like aviation industry.

ECONOMICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT! OUR TORT LAWS EQUAL A SOCIETAL JUDGEMENT AS TO ECONOMICS THAT SOME OF YOU GUYS ARE IGNORING!!!!!!!

The reason why tort is so pervasive is because it's profitable beyond the amount need to make the injured party whole(basically free lunch to the suing party).

If there was a cap on total damage per person, say like, average lifetime earning, and the losing party has to pay the legal cost of the winning party, then tort at current level would drop drastically.

What's happening right now is because there is no cap and the suing party doesn't need to pay the legal cost of the defendant if they lose, if the litigants engage in enough lawsuit, eventually based on a matter of chance, they will win a very large award based on chance (favorable jury/judge/locale combination).

Basically, in U.S., the upside of litigation exceeds the downside of litigation which is why U.S. leads the world in litigation and why it consumes 2-3% of our GDP.

And John, you too...change your focus from business propaganda and look at the economic reality of tort...

Somebody please tell me what it is before I bust a brain blood vessel

Well, in that case, Nobel Prize in economics and finance must be awarded based on business propaganda because usually, Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded based on work published in peer reviewed journals in finance and economic.

Seminal papers such as papers published on MPT(Modern Portfolio Theory) by Markowitz for which he was awarded Nobel Prize must be business propaganda, according to your standard.

Papers such as the one below must be business propaganda too.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=226587
THOMAS J. CAMPBELL
DANIEL P. KESSLER
Stanford Graduate School of Business; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
GEORGE B. SHEPHERD
Emory University School of Law January 1995
NBER Working Paper No. W4989


The Causes and Effects of Liability Reform: Some Empirical Evidence

We provide empirical evidence both on the causes and the effects of liability reforms. Using a newly collected data set of state tort laws and a panel data set containing industry-level data by state for the years 1969-1990, we (1) identify the characteristics of states that are associated with liability reforms and (2) examine whether liability reforms influence productivity and employment. We present two central findings. First, reductions in liability levels are associated with increases in measured productivity and employment in most industries that we studied.

In fact, work done by Federal Reserve Board must be based on business propaganda since they rely on published research, not to mention reliance by investment managers on tools provided by research published in the area of finance and economics.

I've being to an economic conference. Nobody engage in discussion by proclaiming broadly "business propaganda" when confronted with contrary viewpoint.

In my experiences, knowledgeable people in the area of finance and economics explain precisely why they disagree based on issue instead of broadly proclaiming "business propaganda" or other derogatory phrases.

YMMV.


--John

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Glenn E. Meyer, post #281

Such is life - you have summarized the conflict that appears on gun lists all the time. Many members believe in authority and absolutes. Even if the world doesn't work that way - it is thought that we should ignore what is known.

I agree that we should be held more responsible. I face it with students all the time - however, it boils down to the fact that a company needs to take care of its finances and better be smarter than just to spout an ideal behavior as compared to the actuality.

it's based on incentives. Right now, incentives favor lawsuit because there is no cap and plaintiff doesn't need to pay the legal cost of defendant if they lose the lawsuit.

If cap was put into place and litigant was responsible for legal cost of defendant if they lose the case, then it would change.

Right now, if there was even a low probability that the suing party can win a huge settlement based on chance (combination of jury/judge/locale), it would be worth it. Basically, upside of litigation > downside of litigation.

Best regards.

--John

 

[Wildalaska]

In the aviation industry, even if the manufacturer is clearly not at fault and accident was caused by unforeseeable usage, manufacturer is liable if the pilot didn't carry enough insurance

Cases please?

If there was a cap on total damage per person, say like, average lifetime earning, and the losing party has to pay the legal cost of the winning party, then tort at current level would drop drastically.

many jurisdictions have caps.

What's happening right now is because there is no cap and the suing party doesn't need to pay the legal cost of the defendant if they lose, if the litigants engage in enough lawsuit, eventually based on a matter of chance, they will win a very large award based on chance (favorable jury/judge/locale combination).

Some jurisdictions have loser pays fees

I've being to an economic conference. Nobody engage in discussion by proclaiming broadly "business propaganda" when confronted with contrary viewpoint.

Thats to get both YOU John and everybody else here to think...think...not cite some paper where someone is seeking to justify their own worldview.

So I reckon I am going to have to do it for you, even though, you John, came close:

The reason why tort is so pervasive is because it's profitable beyond the amount need to make the injured party whole(basically free lunch to the suing party).

Now before I go further, I would like someone to give me lets just say 2 "free lunch cases" that survived an appeal.

PS.....here are two non free lunches for you that illustrate that the big bad plaintiffs bar isnt always picking on poor corporate, governmental victims.

Attica
Exxon Valdez

WildgimmethefreelunchAlaska

O and by the way:

segap3tsalehtgniwepsneebevahuoytahw noitalutalf dliw

I guess that means you havent a clue as to causation pricinples and are relying on ad hominems instead.

 

[threegun]

Wild,

Bad example

WildseedefinitionofproximatecauseAlaska

In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law, cause-in-fact and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but-for" test: but for the action, the result would not have happened. For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred. For an act to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

But for the one legged mans ignoring of factory recommendations and warnings, the accidental shooting wouldn't have occurred.

But for the one legged mans jacket fanning the hammer the accident would have never occurred.

Both the above would have been averted but for the mans negligence.

Before you go saying "but for" the transfer bar less design................the saa design is perfectly safe when carried as directed. You must have a but forto have an accident.

BTW I guess my example was pretty good since you refuse show how it was a "bad example".

 

[2rugers]

Quoting past cases where the idiots voted in favor of the idiot still has them all leaving the courtroom as idiots, just one idiot is richer than before.

Hopefully, AND LIKELY, this now enriched idiot will have some Fatal Failure to follow the rules somewhere in his future and end up doing us all the the favor his Momma should have done for us in his beginning.

(Knocked him in the head and sold the milk.)

 

[Wildalaska]

Both spoken as folks who havent seen the evidence LOL

and three gun, ya still havent read Kinsman

WA

 

[threegun]

This concept of foreseeability in tort law tends to limit liability to the consequences of an act that could reasonably be foreseen rather than every single consequence that follows. Otherwise, liability could be unlimited in scope, as causes never truly cease having effects far removed in time and space.

From your info "Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co."

BAD EXAMPLE!!

 

[joab]

and three gun, ya still haven't read Kinsman

And you still haven't addressed the lies of 187 either
What happen you, give up

There are none so blind as those who can't see.

Huh/ What exactly have you said to make me see anything
Your pointless points are all over the place and only remotely relevant to the discussion
Like this particular piece of wisdom

I hope that some day you will begin to see that it not someone else's fault when you screw

I hope that some day you will develop the maturity to actually follow and participate in an adult conversation instead of saying nothing loudly
Now go back and actually read my comments and tell me exactly who I blame for this
(here's a hint, my comments have very little to do with the actual accident)

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.

You keep saying that, just before you show that it is you that has missed the point
I never said that the 1911, through extraordinary measures could not be carried hammer down on a live round, I actually said that it could.
I have said many time that it is not designed to be carried that way and you would have to intentionally by pass a design feature to put the gun in that condition
The FA on the other hand forces you to by pass a design feature to put the hammer down on an empty round
There are not a bunch of lawyer labels stopping people from lowering the hammer on a loaded 1911 the design does so by making it harder to do that to use it as it was designed to be carried

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.

Documentation?
For a lawyer you do a whole lot of speculating and ducking and very little proving

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.

Because when carried according to it's design it is a safe carry gun


You have totally missed the point
I gave you a chance to show your stuff

You claim that the defense team was a bunch of idiots to allow this verdict
You have done nothing lawyery in this whole discussion
When asked if there was a specific advantage to the non transfer design you completely ducked the question
You keep trying to compare one dissimilar design to another

If I were on the jury as the average non gun worshiping American I would think that you were deliberately trying to divert the issue and would vote for the award simply because you seem so disingenuous in you argument

All the talk of not wanting to be told what to do via litigation and comparing unwarranted asthectics concerns in dissimilar designs does not nullify the implied warranty of merchantability

 

[STAGE 2]

Documentation?
For a lawyer you do a whole lot of speculating and ducking and very little proving

No more so than you. Its been common practice to carry with 5 for well over 100 years. I don't know Sam Colt and I haven't read his designs, but neither you nor I know whether this revolver was intended to be carried with 5. What I do know is that this revolver was still in use even when other "safer" designs that allowed carry with 6 were available. Either way its your assumption that this revolver was intended to be carried with 6 and neither one of knows whether that is the case.

Because when carried according to it's design it is a safe carry gun

According to you. See above.

You have totally missed the point
I gave you a chance to show your stuff

You claim that the defense team was a bunch of idiots to allow this verdict
You have done nothing lawyery in this whole discussion
When asked if there was a specific advantage to the non transfer design you completely ducked the question
You keep trying to compare one dissimilar design to another

I never claimed that the defense team was a bunch of idiots. I said that I was very surprised at the verdict since they had a bunch of things in their favor from the get go.

As far as there being an advantage to the non transfer design this is the THIRD and last time I'm answering your question. Its easier to disassemble, its easier to work on and its less susceptible to malfunction. These are strictly technical elements and they wholly ignore the issue of consumers wanting an authentic revolver.

My comparisons to other designs have been to show you that your argument is legally flawed, and after leading you to the waterhole I can see your mouth is still dry.

If I were on the jury as the average non gun worshiping American I would think that you were deliberately trying to divert the issue and would vote for the award simply because you seem so disingenuous in you argument

I doubt you'd make it on my jury.

All the talk of not wanting to be told what to do via litigation and comparing unwarranted asthectics concerns in dissimilar designs does not nullify the implied warranty of merchantability

And this is why attorneys pull their hair out at night. If this is a products liability case, the implied warranty of merchantability has nothing to do with anything. That warranty guarantees that goods are reasonably fit for their ordinary purpose. Its beyond all argument that this revolver was reasonably fit for its ordinary purpose BECAUSE ITS ORDINARY PURPOSE DID NOT INCLUDE BEING CARRIED WITH 6. Apples meet oranges.

What is the issue is whether this product was unreasonably dangerous or defective (here's that lawyery stuff you were longing for which I'm writing for a 2nd time). Even if I was to concede the point that this revolver was flawed in its design, this still wouldn't get you to a verdict. You need to prove by a preponderance that the revolver was UNREASONABLY dangerous and defective.

Looking only at shooting, there isn't anything defective about this revolver since there isn't any more danger shooting this pistol than there is with a transfer bar revolver. The danger presents itself when the revolver is carried, and only if the situation is just right where the hammer is able to hit the primer with enough force.

Thus, with this in mind, and given the fact that there are all sorts of warnings directing the user not to carry this way, and given the fact that this is virtually common knowledge, and given that people have been carrying this way for over a century, you're going to have to prove that the pistol's design is still UNREASONABLY dangerous.

This also ignores the dangerous presumption that attaches to firearms as well.

A design flaw isn't going to get you there. A dangerous design flaw isn't going to get you there. All this and I haven't begun to talk about how consumers PREFER this traditional type of action.