Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

[Microgunner]

Hi all, I'm new to the firing line but have been reading for awhile and just wanted to introduce myself. My name is mispelled, It's Microgunner, but I don't know how to change it.

Joab, I answered you on post 189. Someone calls you stupid deal with them. You attack us all even those who never started name calling.

As I said...."For starters it is you that started calling people stupid. I simply called it ridiculous."

You were crying like a little child that someone had the nerve to call you stupid yet you hypocritically called everyone stupid yourself. Thats what I was pointing out.

Now we can get on to the debate.

All I wanted to say was "SMACK, right in the grillwork. That's gotta sting"!

 

[Microgunner]

Doesn't make it right

Just because in America's litigous society anyone can sue anyone for anything and possibly win with a slick enough lawyer and gullible enough jury doesn't make it right, just makes it possible. What a sad commentary on our "modern, enlightened" society that some feel it necessary to hold others responsible for our own stupidity. Even after we're amply warned.

 

[threegun]

Joab, Why do you think that prior to the hippy movement few people sued the company? Surely people shot themselves in the past. Why sue now and not then?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Threegun, it was the marijuana brownies and free love that lead the hippies to sue gun companies. Or maybe the mushrooms?

I was following you until that one.

 

[threegun]

Micrgunner,
Has society always been sue happy?

 

[threegun]

Glenn, I don't know why just when (give or take a few years). I believe that it started in the 60's and has grown since. You know that if it was the 60's it had to be the hippy's lol............not all of them Glenn some of you grew up and became great people many didn't though.

The mushrooms, pcp, and lsd would probably get the nod.

 

[Microgunner]

Micrgunner,
Has society always been sue happy?

I don't know. I'm only 52 and "always" is alot longer than that. But in my lifespan it seems to have blossomed in the last 30 years or so. With 1 attorney for every 15,000 residents in the US there's plenty of these scum suckers whispering "sue, sue, sue" in folks ears. Most can't resist the lure of a free payday even when they're the cause of their own injury.

 

[STAGE 2]

Yeah but you are the only one who could have saved FA from this judgment

Nope. Just one of many texas lawyers who could have.

In the end FA made a known defective product and got called on it

And once again this isn't the standard. Maybe if this was the United states of Joab it might be, but its not. But who cares what the law actually says, lets read in what we want.

The CEO kew or should have known that his product was ripe for litigation by the simple fact that as early as the 1990's VPC called the Old Model Ruger the most dangerously defective gun ever made
Only a complete an utter idiot would ignore that threat
Question my intelligence all you want but facts are facts

I love facts, and you apparently love them too. So 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.

Oh wait, because some guy somewhere said something about the design this makes it defective. Yeah, thats how the law works

Just like the fact that I have claimed or implied (or demonstrated) no legal expertise.

Fixed.

If you can't prove your case with facts why not use lies and diversion,. but then you do do that for a living.

And if you were able to get out of the starting gate, you'd know that as a defendant I dont have to prove ANYTHING to win. I can sit there on my rear for the entire trial, not present any evidence, not call any witnesses and still win the case. Am I going to do this, probably not, but the point remains that I dont have to prove anything. But then again what do I know.

If you respond to nothing else here I want you to respond to this question. If everything you have said is true, then you should also support lawsuits against companies like uberti, cimarron and all those companies that produce traditional single actions.

Most importantly however you should support a MAJOR lawsuit against glock and Springfield. There have been many documented instances of people having a ND while field stripping their glock. With all of the available designs out there today there is no excuse for making a pistol that forces you to squeeze the trigger to break it down. Its defective, and unreasonably dangerous, and I have no doubt its injured more people than even own FA revolvers. The CEO's have been put on notice with the number of injuries, the existence of other designs, and the complaints from various gun writers and customers.

This is your logic so are you going to stand by it?

 

[joab]

Joab, I answered you on post 189. Someone calls you stupid deal with them. You attack us all even those who never started name calling.

No, you addressed one small part of 187 and that answer was exposed as a lie in my next post
The comment you quote was addressed to all those that could not get past the word extra ordinary or be bothered to look it up

You were crying like a little child that someone had the nerve to call you stupid yet you hypocritically called everyone stupid yourself. Thats what I was pointing out.

but you see that is the lie

In your mind you have adequately addressed the issue. Your mind that assigns blame to a company DESPITE the actions of the individual.

Wrong again as I have repeatedly pointed out

Can the SAA or FA be carried with all chambers loaded without an accident? Can it be carried with all chambers loaded and go off without an action to the hammer? If the answer is yes and no then your argument is lost.

If that were the question then you would be right, but since the question is can the gun go off accidentally while carried to it's full design capacity then the answer would also be yes and that is the crux of my argument and the plaintiffs

All I wanted to say was "SMACK, right in the grillwork. That's gotta sting"!

Why would a verifiable lie sting anyone but the liar, RIF much
Especially when he can't decide if the gun is safe to carry fully loaded or if it is commonly known that it can't be, Both are arguments that he has presented

Just because in America's litigous society anyone can sue anyone for anything and possibly win with a slick enough lawyer and gullible enough jury doesn't make it right, just makes it possible.

Never said it was right I only said it was possible and the company should have protected itself better when a viable option existed before the gun made it's debut
And once again nowhere have I blamed anyone but the user for the accident. I may may corrected a few simplistic misconceptions of how the accident happened but nowhere have I placed blame for the accident beyond the user
Some here just like to live in a black and white world where inductive leaps replace logical thinking

oab, Why do you think that prior to the hippy movement few people sued the company? Surely people shot themselves in the past.

Why would you think I care or that it would be pertinent to the discussion?
We don't live in pre hippy times we live in the now times in a society where lawyers are more prevalent than in any other
Litigation is a fact of life for the most insignificant of occurrences. Any company operating in these times should know this and if they choose to ignore that fact they should expect to pay out some awards
If FA does stop offering the non transfer bar models now that proves my point that they are not too bright

 

[joab]

And once again this isn't the standard. Maybe if this was the United states of Joab it might be, but its not. But who cares what the law actually says, lets read in what we want.

I have not argued law with you here so I don't know exactly why you are off on that rant unless it is simply to try to put me in my place

I don't really know what the "standard" is but I do know that the plaintiff claimed that the gun was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and did not live up to the company's representation as the world's finest revolver specifically designed to give any user safety, top quality and dependability.

This design has been long known to be defective with over 600 deaths attributed to it in the Ruger incarnation
Ruger fixed it long before the first FA came off the production line

I don't know of any cases because, but that means very little. As WA pointed out you don't always here about the settlements and many times there are gag orders written into the settlements

I love facts

I think the word you are looking for is loathe

And if you were able to get out of the starting gate, you'd know that as a defendant I dont have to prove ANYTHING to win.

But you are not the defendant, you are simply a participant in a debate. Remember you said you weren't doing the Clarence Darrow thing because I won't pay you to

If you respond to nothing else here I want you to respond to this question. If everything you have said is true, then you should also support lawsuits against companies like uberti, cimarron and all those companies that produce traditional single actions.

There's one problem with you question
I don't support this lawsuit, and have not implied that I did
I support the jury decision only because the company allowed this to get to trial when they could have easily avoided it at the design table
I support the decision because as things go today it was as responsible a decision as you will get from a group of people that may or may not have any firearms knowledge let alone expertise
The award was scaled down from the 10 million sought to $600,000 which they split because they too recognized that both parties were equally dumb in this case

Most importantly however you should support a MAJOR lawsuit against glock and Springfield. There have been many documented instances of people having a ND while field stripping their glock.

And the difference is...
They were not designed to be stripped while loaded
Having that type of ND requires a violation of one or more of the four commandments
What rule is it that you cannot keep your gun in a holster?
Explain that one to me and I'll hire you to go after Galco and Bianchi

This is your logic so are you going to stand by it?

Apparently you are using selective RIF because I have explained the above comment over and over when you made the equally irrelevant comparison to the 1911, and the hotrod analogy and the freon jug analogy etc etc

And by the way Uberti has begun using a hammer block safety in their design
Most of the other SAA clone companies are going to the transfer bar, why is that?

 

[Microgunner]

Why would a verifiable lie sting anyone but the liar, RIF much
Especially when he can't decide if the gun is safe to carry fully loaded or if it is commonly known that it can't be, Both are arguments that he has presented

My appologies to you. it just struck me that way. Didn't intend to make light of your point of view.

Never said it was right I only said it was possible and the company should have protected itself better when a viable option existed before the gun made it's debut
And once again nowhere have I blamed anyone but the user for the accident. I may may corrected a few simplistic misconceptions of how the accident happened but nowhere have I placed blame for the accident beyond the user
Some here just like to live in a black and white world where inductive leaps replace logical thinking

This was not intended as an argument toward you but rather a retorical statement.

 

[STAGE 2]

I have not argued law with you here so I don't know exactly why you are off on that rant unless it is simply to try to put me in my place

We are talking about a court case, I argue the law and then you say I'm "going off on a rant"? Thats utterly ridiculous.

Whether you think FA failed to fulful a duty to their shareholders, their company or whomever has nothing to do with the law, adn has nothing to do with whether a company is liable. My original statement was that I don't think the FA attorneys did as good of a job as they could have. Why? Because the law backs their position to a large degree. What you think was the business savy decision is totally irrelevant in a case like this.

I don't really know what the "standard" is but I do know that the plaintiff claimed that the gun was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and did not live up to the company's representation as the world's finest revolver specifically designed to give any user safety, top quality and dependability.

And there you go with those selective facts again. Any and all representations FA made about their product were qualified with the statement that the revolver shouldn't be carried with one in the chamber.

This design has been long known to be defective with over 600 deaths attributed to it in the Ruger incarnation
Ruger fixed it long before the first FA came off the production line

Link? You'll forgive me if I don't take that figure as gospel. Whats more important however is to look at the number of injuries caused by ALL single action revolvers since we are claiming a design defect and that is the design. I don't know if there are any statistics out there, but given the number of revolvers produced since the 1870's I'm willing to bet that any accident rate wouldn't clear 1%

I don't know of any cases because, but that means very little. As WA pointed out you don't always here about the settlements and many times there are gag orders written into the settlements

No, it means a whole hell of alot. The law has all sorts of "notice". Theres legal notice, actual notice, constructive notice etc. Here, assuming they haven't been sued for this before, FA had ZERO notice. Whats more, there isn't anywhere they could look to that would show any sort of notice.

Because Ruger makes a transfer bar revolver isn't notice. Because another company makes a different design which allows for full carry doesn't make this design defective. You hold up Ruger here as the pinnacle of this case. Thats totally wrong. Ruger and other firearms come into play when looking for a safer alternative design BUT NOT when determining whether a product is defective. (Theres that darn law again) The FA is looked at in a vaccum.

As a result, this may have very well been the first time someone has ever been injured with an FA revolver. I don't know how long they've been around but I think its at least been longer than a decade. If so thats even further evidence that FA had no notice that they would face any legal liability for their design.

But you are not the defendant, you are simply a participant in a debate. Remember you said you weren't doing the Clarence Darrow thing because I won't pay you to

And again you missed the point. At trial FA's attorneys didn't have to prove their case. They merely had to disprove a SINGLE element of the plaintiffs case to win. Thats it. Not only this, but they don't even have to definitively disprove it. They only have to put it in doubt enough that its not established by a preponderance.

In all of these posts I've given you at least 10 different reasons that would put several of the necessary elements in doubt. Of course if I didn't frame the argument properly, most of these wouldn't have the same effect.

There's one problem with you question
I don't support this lawsuit, and have not implied that I did
I support the jury decision only because the company allowed this to get to trial when they could have easily avoided it at the design table
I support the decision because as things go today it was as responsible a decision as you will get from a group of people that may or may not have any firearms knowledge let alone expertise
The award was scaled down from the 10 million sought to $600,000 which they split because they too recognized that both parties were equally dumb in this case

Fair enough. Then I shall change my language to read that you would support the same sort of judgment against these other revlover companies. Although it kind of ridiculous to say that you support a judgment in favor of a plaintiff that yields substantial damages, but you don't support the lawsuit.

I still can't understand why, if these products are defective, there is such a huge market for traditional SA revolvers. Wouldn't everybody want a ruger or a taurus if they have all the advantages and no disadvantages?

And the difference is...
They were not designed to be stripped while loaded
Having that type of ND requires a violation of one or more of the four commandments
What rule is it that you cannot keep your gun in a holster?
Explain that one to me and I'll hire you to go after Galco and Bianchi

And the FA revolver was NOT designed to be carried with the hammer on a live round. This is where you get your wires crossed. You say that because its possible to carry with the hammer on a live round that means it was designed that way. Thats simply not the case and the literature FA provides clearly explains this.

My "irrelevant" comparison with the 1911 was trying to demonstrate this. I can carry a 1911 with a round in the chamber, hammer down and safety off. By your logic, because I can carry it this way it means it was designed to be carried this way. We all know thats not the case. As such, because you have an opinion about the FA revolver, or because something can be done with it, doesn't mean that this is what the design was intended for.

As a result, my prior question is still valid. A glock isn't designed to be field stripped with a round in the chamber but it can be, and has been numerous times. Shouldn't glock get rid of this clearly dangeous system in light of the fact that there are plenty of DAO polymer pistols that can be stripped without pulling the trigger?

And by the way Uberti has begun using a hammer block safety in their design
Most of the other SAA clone companies are going to the transfer bar, why is that?

And by the way, uberti still offers traditional SA revolvers without any sort of safety.

As far as anyone else changing to the transferbar design, thats their choice and undoubtedly they are doing it out of fear of litigation. Howeve as I indicated before, because one company does something, this does not make it legally binding OR PLACE ANY MORE LIABILITY ON ANOTHER COMPANY for not making the same decision.

 

[2rugers]

Stage2 that last post was one of the most articulate and straightforward rebuttals I have had the pleasure to read.

Fine, fine work.

 

[joab]

We are talking about a court case, I argue the law and then you say I'm "going off on a rant"? Thats utterly ridiculous.

The rant I was talking about was you going off on how you do this for a living
Of course then you said that you won't for it here, but i suppose we are suppose to overlook one statement when it contradicts another

And there you go with those selective facts again. Any and all representations FA made about their product were qualified with the statement that the revolver shouldn't be carried with one in the chamber.

Selective facts huh?
I just quoted/paraphrased the description of the case from More Law, but what do they know they just do this for a living

Because Ruger makes a transfer bar revolver isn't notice. Because another company makes a different design which allows for full carry doesn't make this design defective. You hold up Ruger here as the pinnacle of this case. Thats totally wrong. Ruger and other firearms come into play when looking for a safer alternative design BUT NOT when determining whether a product is defective. (Theres that darn law again) The FA is looked at in a vaccum.

The FA is essentially a reworked Ruger, the transfer bar would certainly be brought up by the plaintiff as would the fact that Ruger lost a case based on an Old Model .41 Blackhawk ADing into a persons leg which was upheld by the Alaskan supreme court
Oh looky there there's that elusive case we have been looking for
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day, 594 P. 2d 38, 47 (1979).

because one company does something, this does not make it legally binding OR PLACE ANY MORE LIABILITY ON ANOTHER COMPANY for not making the same decision.

Never said it did
It simply shows that those companies are looking out for their bottom line, which is the primary duty of the CEO

My "irrelevant" comparison with the 1911 was trying to demonstrate this. I can carry a 1911 with a round in the chamber, hammer down and safety off. By your logic, because I can carry it this way it means it was designed to be carried this way.

No your logic simply tries to twist it to mean that
Remember I said that you had to intentionally depart from the design in order to drop the hammer on a live round for carry?

A glock isn't designed to be field stripped with a round in the chamber but it can be, and has been numerous times.

And to do so you must violtae at least one of the basic rules of firearm safety

just because you can force something to go outside it's design does not mean it is design that way

Just because the factory has found a way to make you responsible for circumventing their design flaw does not that the design flaw which is universally recognized, even you have acknowledged it when it suits you does not exist

Carrying on an empty chamber is not a design feature it is simply a way around a flaw that was noncorrectable at the time
That time has past and there is no reason for the flaw to exist in a modern gun, which the FA is

However as I indicated before, because one company does something, this does not make it legally binding OR PLACE ANY MORE LIABILITY ON ANOTHER COMPANY for not making the same decision.

Apparently when the plaintiff can show that the other design could have made the gun safer it does

 

[joab]

Double tap read below

 

[joab]

I still can't understand why, if these products are defective, there is such a huge market for traditional SA revolvers. Wouldn't everybody want a ruger or a taurus if they have all the advantages and no disadvantages?

Already asked and answered
Purist want them because they are purists, that's all

Although it kind of ridiculous to say that you support a judgment in favor of a plaintiff that yields substantial damages, but you don't support the lawsuit.

Simple
The company should have known that they were ripe for litigation, especially in light of the newly discovered lost Ruger BlackHawk case I found that and I don't even do this for a living, odd huh?
The jury did not award the ridiculous sum of $10,000,000 choosing instead to put 50/50 blame on both parties

In a time when judges sue laundries for $54,000,000 for losing their pants
This was as a responsible judgment as you can get in these irresponsible times
The jury found unanimously that the design was the proximate cause of the accident based on testimony by experts that all revolvers should incorporate the transfer bar system but still awarded a rather small amount due to the negligence shown by the plaintiff

Further I don't agree with the firearms immunity anymore than I agree with the AA idea of protected groups of people

 

[STAGE 2]

The rant I was talking about was you going off on how you do this for a living
Of course then you said that you won't for it here, but i suppose we are suppose to overlook one statement when it contradicts another

No, 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.

Selective facts huh?
I just quoted/paraphrased the description of the case from More Law, but what do they know they just do this for a living

And? The description of the case isn't evidence nor is it necessarily anything that was said at trial. You brought up the FA sales pitch as if it was some contractual standard that had been violated which simply isn't the case. If you're gonna hold that statement over their heads then in the interests of full disclosure you need to include all of their warnings an limitations as well.

The FA is essentially a reworked Ruger, the transfer bar would certainly be brought up by the plaintiff as would the fact that Ruger lost a case based on an Old Model .41 Blackhawk ADing into a persons leg which was upheld by the Alaskan supreme court
Oh looky there there's that elusive case we have been looking for
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day, 594 P. 2d 38, 47 (1979).

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.

There is a distinction between a warning that says "be careful this may happen" and "under no circumstances should you do this". The ruger warning was the former while the FA was the latter. Loading and unloading a pistol is part of its primary function. Carrying, especially for this type of pistol, is not. The facts of these two cases are distinct, and while you may not believe so, any competent attorney will tell you otherwise.

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. 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. So again I say that there was no notice to FA that they should have been wary of being hauled into court more so than any other gun manufacturer.

It simply shows that those companies are looking out for their bottom line, which is the primary duty of the CEO

As long as we can agree that this has nothing to do with anything related to the trial or liability I suppose I should count my blessings.

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?

Remember I said that you had to intentionally depart from the design in order to drop the hammer on a live round for carry?

I don't have to depart from anything. 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.

Its like saying that because the tach in my car goes all the way up to 8k then I can take the car up to 8K and the manufacturer should be responsible for any damage. No one would say thats reasonable or even sane. Just because you can do it doesn't mean thats what it was intended for, especially if the people who made the product say otherwise. And I know you agree with me on this point because in the very next quote you says...

just because you can force something to go outside it's design does not mean it is design that way

...how bout them apples.

And to do so you must violtae at least one of the basic rules of firearm safety

So what? The law doesn't care about the 4 safety rules. They aren't legally binding or even authority. There's always the "bonehead factor" which clearly was present in this case. The law doesn't presume everybody to be uber careful all the time. As such, the glock is flawed and unreasonably dangerous. You should support a judgement agains them as well. If not then thats the ultimate in hypocracy.

just because you can force something to go outside it's design does not mean it is design that way

Already dealt with this.

Just because the factory has found a way to make you responsible for circumventing their design flaw does not that the design flaw which is universally recognized, even you have acknowledged it when it suits you does not exist

Assuming it is a design flaw, it does not mean its actionable either. Thats whats important. I can make plenty of flawed things (and I submit to you that most products are flawed in some form or another) but as long as its not unreasonably dangerous I'm judgment proof.

Carrying on an empty chamber is not a design feature it is simply a way around a flaw that was noncorrectable at the time
That time has past and there is no reason for the flaw to exist in a modern gun, which the FA is

Already asked and answered
Purist want them because they are purists, that's all

I included these two together because its a perfect example of what you've been doing for most of your posts. Your opinion isn't evidence, authority or even fact. Because you don't think there is any reason for traditional actions doesn't mean there isn't.

You may have ignored my previous post about top competition SASS shooters exclusively using traditional action revolvers. Clearly there is some other reason that people in competitive shooting use these pistols. A functional practical difference. Because you discount it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Simple
The company should have known that they were ripe for litigation, especially in light of the newly discovered lost Ruger BlackHawk case I found that and I don't even do this for a living, odd huh?
The jury did not award the ridiculous sum of $10,000,000 choosing instead to put 50/50 blame on both parties

In a time when judges sue laundries for $54,000,000 for losing their pants
This was as a responsible judgment as you can get in these irresponsible times
The jury found unanimously that the design was the proximate cause of the accident but still awarded a rather small amount

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.

Like I also said, your ruger case is 1) not the same issue and 2) nearly 30 years old. FA was no more ripe for litigation than any other gun manufacturer, especially in light of the fact of how many companies there are today that produce these types of revolvers.

And again you have seemed to blend two arguments together and lost track of both. If A CEO has a duty to protect the company, and altering the design of the pistol which has made them profitable may do the company more harm than any potential litigation, then it would be imprudent for the CEO to change anything.

This fact is even more compelling in light of the popularity and prevelance of traditional single action pistols on the market. Its simply not good business, good lawyering or good anything to expect a CEO to alter its entire business operation based on a single lawsuit 3 decades ago.

Further I don't agree with the firearms immunity anymore than I agree with the AA idea of protected groups

You don't have to, but its the law. Of course if you remove this, then people will start to bring suits again for cutting themselves with knives stating that the product was defective because it was too sharp. They didn't think it would cut that well. Its happened in the past and it would undoubtedly happen ten fold in the future should this be removed.

 

[joab]

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

how bout them apples.

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

 

[STAGE 2]

Never said the law doesn't allow it, I merely said I can do better. As far as being a newbie lawyer I'm not quite sure where you got that from, but its as equally as factual as pretty much everything else you've said.

I'll end the argument as this just isn't going to go anywhere. You can revel in any logical victory you feel you have won. Just understand that your arguments gave several practicing attorneys a hearty laugh and was a nice momentary distraction from the mounds of litigation they have before them.

 

[joab]

They're not my arguments because I have not attempted to argue law with you

The case is history
All the things you said could not be done were done
All the things you said were not actionable obviously were actionable

You were the one trying to pretend to try a case and you failed miserably
Of course then you said you weren't then you said you were

You cannot deny the flaw because it is common knowledge
You cannot deny that the gun was unreasonably dangerous because the design has been deemed so in the past

You have contradicted yourself repeated ly while I have maintained one line

The gun was flawed, the maker knew or should have known, a viable option was available before they started production

If you and the other paralegals think that's so funny then please explain why is that is also the line that won the case
You know the one you said should not have been winnable or even heard?

I have caught you in your flip flopping and it is here for all to see
Remember the case that you said didn't exist
I showed it to you, of course true to form you denied making the statement, you know the one I quoted for you
You can make all the inane irrelevant comparisons to dissimilar designs you want it does not change the fact that the gun design was flawed and a viable alternative was available and the maker should have known