o, what I said was that if you want everything spoon fed to you with footnotes then your going to have to do what all my clients do and pay me for my time. Pull out your check book and I'll write you a treatise. Short of that, everything you're gonna get here is the quick and dirty guide to products liability.
I did not need or ask to be spoon fed anything
The only thing I have asked from you is a source for all the speculations you have presented
he description of the case isn't evidence nor is it necessarily anything that was said at trial.
Sorry but I will take the word of people who were actually at the trial over the word of someone who wasn't but still speculates he could have done better
Yup, and in that case, the plaintiff was unloading the gun and had dropped it while in the cab of his truck. While I don't necessarily agree with the outcome of that case, that is different than the facts of the case here. In this suit, the danger didn't present itself when shooting, or loading, or unloading. It happened when the plaintiff did something the instructions specifically said not to do.
The inherent flaw was still the reason determined for the AD
Anf you said that you were not aware of any case I just showed you one
So what you are aware of or not has been reduced to mere speculation instead of professional opinion
So once again we are back to the start. There isn't any evidence of FA revolvers going off when dropped or when being loaded or anything of the sort
How soon you forget your own words
show me any judicial decision where any court, state or federal ruled the traditional single action design an unreasonable dangerous defect. Better yet show me any court decision where a traditional single action design was ruled just a defect. In fact show me a case where a plaintiff sued a manufacturer alleging a design defect simply because the firearm was a traditional single action.I showed you one
We're coming up on 30 years since this judgment was rendered with more SA companies on the market than ever without any legal reprisals.
Since I ain't gots me no legal expertise I'll just have to rely on your's when deciding how much weight I can give that that speculation
see above
Suppose that FA did change to a ruger action however. Suppose they did that and sales plummeted as a result. I don't know if they would, but you don't know if they wouldn't. Would a CEO then be negligent in his primary duty if he allowed this change to happen knowing that such a change would result in major losses for the company?
I have already addressed this
Since the FA is based on the Ruger then they could look to post 73 and post 83 sales of Ruger to determine that.
Based on the number of Ruger big bores I see around I think it would safe to speculate that sales would not suffer, at least not as much as losing a lawsuit and having new prospective customers know that your gun has been officially through legal judgement branded as unreasonably dangerous would
You can't sit there and say that lowering the hammer on a live round for carry is a "design departure" but loading that final round for carry isn't. That just doesn't hold.
I have already addressed this also
Comparing lowering the hammer on a live round in a 1911 to loading a SA to full cap just doesn't hold
In one you would have to intentionally bypass a design feature to make it unsafe in the other you have to intentionally defeat the design to make it safe
If the tach designed to go to 8k is installed in a car that the manufacture knows or should know will explode at 6k then yes they should be liable if they are advertising and selling the car as a car safe to race in
How about them oranges
Don't know if that analogy works because I'm not much of a tach car type of guy
You should support a judgement agains them as well. If not then thats the ultimate in hypocracy.
Doesn't the design require that your finger be on the trigger for there to be a Ad
Does the FA design require that, nope
The law does not have to deal with the four safety rules the jury will do that and the defense will make sure that they are aware of that standard
but as long as its not unreasonably dangerous I'm judgment proof.
Buit the FA design is unreasonably dangerous, it's in the history books now.
And the design that they based there design on was deemed unreasonably dangerous a full five years before they started rolling them off the line
Clearly there is some other reason that people in competitive shooting use these pistols. A functional practical difference
What would that functional practical reason be, or are you just speculating again
Like I said, it amazes me that anyone armed with google and a couple of Perry Mason re-reruns under there belt is ready to re-write the rules of evidence.
getting all personal again?
I have never like Perry or Matlock
What amazes me is that you continue to say that the law doesn't allow exactly what happened here
The product was deemed unreasonably dangerous based on the fact that it did not utilize the transfer bar
The transfer bar would have been easily and cheaply incorporated into this MODERN firearm design
But still you. who listed his occupation as student fie years ago thinks he could have performed better than the lawyers hired for this case that went up against a lawyer with over twenty years experience
You can't even discuss this with me without getting flustered
You cannot argue here that the gun being flawed is not actionable because it is and was
You cannot argue that a gun is inherently dangerous and therefore the maker cannot be held liable because they were
The base fact is everything you claim the law does not allow for it did
The fact that other companies use the transfer bar was the basis of the expert testimony that helped to defeat the FA argument
Their claim that the empty chamber acted as an infallible safety was rejected
But you a fairly newbie lawyer at best could have saved the day is the height of arrogance
The fact that you try to call me a keyboard lawyer when I have not even argued law is the height of twisty logic
The company made a product that they knew or should have known was flawed and could easily be remedied before they even started production
I am not arguing law and your legal arguments are fairly moot because honestly i don't think you know as much as you think you do
The case was lost based on the fact that the gun was flawed and the company knew or should have known that it was before they started production, the very things that you said could not happen according to Da Law
This is simple common sense because no one here can say with a straight face that it is no historically accepted fact that the design was flawed
Every one of you have admitted it before you unadmitted it