Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit
- Thread starter guntime22
- Start date
- Status
What has to be violated to get an AD from the Freedom Arms Joab? A legal warning maybe. Why you put so much weight into violating one of the basic rules of firearms safety yet completely disregard the one major well known no no's for the SAA which is clearly written in the owners manual as a legal warning is mind blowing.
Stage you have clearly demonstrated the "problems" with this lawsuit. I have added the recent attitude that has folks refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. Others have added pertinent information. All point to a bad lawsuit that was saved by a worst jury. Joab's own thinking gives weight to one violation yet none to another violation proving that his thinking isn't consistent or logical. The jury must have been loaded with Joab's and no defense would break thru. We can never convince him no matter how legal or logical the argument. I should have stopped the first time.
DonR101395
New member
+1 to that, you guys are doing a fine job though. I'm surprised to see it last this long.
As I said before the purpose for me posting this
is to point out that an additional action must be performed to cause the AD. You seem to agree. Still FA has provided a way to carry perfectly safely. My point is to show the negligence of the consumer in this case. The consumer violated the rules provided by the factory. The consumer chose the SAA design therefore he must take its limitations and accept its consequences for breaking the rules provided. Without the negligent actions by the consumer we argue that this court case wouldn't exist.
BTW.....Backwoods hiking with a boat anchor like the FA???????? You don't hike much do you?
Microgunner
New member
Just wanted to chime in again. Everyone has made some good points IMO. I am certainly, without a doubt, a dyed in the wool firearms ownership advocate who would never consider sueing others for my own foolish errors. But, if I were laid up in the hospital, missing a leg, wondering how my family was going to survive, how I was going to pay for college, medical bills etc., I might have a different opinion. Never say never.
Microgunner
New member
I'm just saying, we don't know what we're capable of until pushed far enough. Anyone who says they know exactly how they'll react in all given situations is kidding themselves. You'll do what you have to do.
Microgunner
New member
Most folks are fair minded I believe. I'd like to think I'm among them.
After 134 years and more than a million revolvers from several different companies we only have 600 AD's due to 1873 design. Of those how many could have happened with a transfer barred revolver? How many of those could have happened if the factory recommended carry method was used on a traditional 1873 revolver?
Microgunner
New member
Why, thank you.
I give up, how many? If I'd known there'd be a test I would have studied.
Great now you're gonna argue law
That legal warning has been held at least twice not to be a legal warning and that warning does not nullify a design flaw it only confirms it.
What's mind blowing is that you still consider this a legal warning
What isn't so mind blowing is you choosing one part of a comment and ignoring the part that you can't fit into your argument
These guns were not designed to be field stripped with a round in the chamber and to do ALSO violates one if the four
These rules are in place because of an aspect of Stages argument,
Guns are inherently dangerous.
Also as Stage 2 has pointed out they enjoy a certain level of immunity because of that.
The Ruger design has been determined at least once to be unreasonably dangerous due to it's basic design flaw which goes over and above the four rules
No one has bothered to offer a legal logical explanation
All I have seen is denials flip flops and speculations
Anytime I have addressed these panties get bunched and reading comprehension goes out the window
Another simplistic comment
Did I say that I did
Did I say that it would be a choice that I would make?
Learn to read I said it was advertised as such.
But I have never done much bear country hiking and from your comment I would assume you have not either
And there' that whole RIF thing again or are you doing your typical twisty routine
I specifically stated Ruger in the comment
The Ruger BlackHawk is not an 1873 design it is a 1952 design
The origins are a little murky of the transfer bar decision
Some say it was not a result of a lawsuit an article by the WallStreet journal (that I cannot bring up) alleges that it was to settle thousands of lawsuits
Now that's a deliberate twist
The Ruger an FA are not traditional SAA designs and the factory suggestions on how to circumvent a flaw do not nullify the flaw
And I have not disagreed with that point, in fact I have specifically agreed with it
However the company knew or should have known that there had been lawsuits in the past based on this primitive Ruger design and that a cheap fix was available at the time of production
Had they implemented this into their design this particular accident would not have happened in all but the most freakish of occurrences
And again for all of you calender deficient members
We do not live in the past and this litigious society is not as threegun alleges, a recent phenom, it has been around for most of my life it has certainly been around for all of FA's life
The juryb also agreed with your point
However they were not hobbled with the simplistic view you are
It is possible for both parties to share blame for an accident
Study the explosion of lawsuits in the past 2 to 3 decades. Compare them to the lawsuits filed from 1900 to say 1960. Then study when the increase in product warning labels began. I think someone noted that a hot sauce bottle had a warning not to snort the contents. I challenge you to find these types of idiotic warnings on products prior to the 1960's. Society has become much more litigious in recent history (as I said from the late 60's to present). People suing for spilling hot cofee in their crotch or suing for 54 million on a pair of pants.
What has changed is the inability for people to accept responsibility for there actions. Company's must go over and beyond reasonable warnings to protect themselves. FA's did warn of the danger in carrying their revolver with 5 rounds. The consumer ignored those warnings. Anything past this point is not relevant. Beyond this point lies the consumer lacking the personal responsibility for his actions. Beyond this point lies your inability to comprehend that FA didn't force a violation of owners manual.
How can you agree that the consumer violated the rules then blame the company for producing a product that when operated to owners manual spec cannot cause an AD? This is not logical.
I challenge you to find where I have disputed this
I said specifically that this has been going on for MOST OF MY LIFE, I was born in '62
You have to read past what fits into your argument
If you consider that recent then you must consider me young, and that hasn't happened for a while now.
Further more the FA came out AFTER 1960 a full twenty years after 1960
And again that calender will show you that we are now a full forty and almost fifty years past 1960
Actually for that to be a point you would have to show where I have said that FA was responsible for forcing the user to do anything
When looked at by one with limited logical thinking I can see how that could be assumed
The company made a product with a known defect that was easily fixable at the time of initial production.
Their claim that the empty chamber is a safety doesn't wash
Any claims that the gun was design this way is disingenuous at best
Since everyone here likes irrelevant analogies I'll try one to illustrate my view
Threegun is from Tampa so you might understand this better than some
If a man goes to Eatonville to recruit for the Klan and gets his head kicked in will anyone here feel sorry for him
If he sues for damages afterwards would we take into consideration that he knew or should have known that his actions although legal were extraordinarily stupid and that there was a flaw in his thinking process and that there was a viable option to recruiting in that area
But we would not hold the other parties blameless because they too had other viable options and that there were definite flaws in their thinking processes
Both parties should share blame because both parties should have known better
The old playground defenses of "He Started It" and "He's stupider than I am" don't not work in the real post 1960s world
As a society we have grown up and grown ups sometime have to do thing they don't want to and that seem stupid to the children
No.
No. Legal means legal. Its goes back to the issue of just becaue you don't like nor agree doesn't mean he can't do it. Do I sympathize with the folks who kicked his face in, sure. Do they have a right to do it, nope.
Really bad analogy.
Hot damn. This is why I wasted several pages of posts. If you think in your hypo "both parties are to blame" then there sure as hell isnt any way to convince you that there is a possibility FA shouldn't be liable.
This of course goes back to what I said awhile back about how theres no way you'd make it on my jury. Maybe they made the mistake of letting a few Joab's on, which is something that could also be remedied by someone who has cut a few juries in their time. Who knows.
Joab, Quit playing games dude. You know I posted the challenge to prove that our society has become much more litigious in recent years. Since you posted this.......
Further if you can't see that lawsuits are out of control in just the past 20 years we need not continue this debate. From coffee burned labia to 54 million dollar pants. From slip and fall specialists to environmentalist wacko's. From bogus chiropractors to ambulance chasing lawyers. Things have changed and it started in the late 60's.
........I will argue that 30 or so years of 231 years is quit recent. Again it is my belief that this change in attitude is responsible for the explosion in litigation and the trend of jury's finding guilt on part of the manufacturer despite the actions of the victim that caused the accident. It is also my belief that you have been affected by this change.
Further if you can't see that lawsuits are out of control in just the past 20 years we need not continue this debate. From coffee burned labia to 54 million dollar pants. From slip and fall specialists to environmentalist wacko's. From bogus chiropractors to ambulance chasing lawyers. Things have changed and it started in the late 60's.
Logical thinking 101. The factory warned of the danger and the consumer ignored the warning. Logic dictates that since the consumer knew of the danger yet still chose to both keep the gun and carry it improperly he is to blame. Since the design flaw cannot be exposed if carried to factory specs logic dictates that the design flaw isn't to blame. BTW you say design flaw most say design limitation.
This is why I keep asking you if the gun can accidentally fire when carried per factory specs. If the gun could fire while being carried per factory specs then there would be liability on the factory.
Still this jury found the factory partially at fault. Jurors obviously suffering from IAPR and illogical thinking. Kinda like you buddy.
- Status