Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

[joab]

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.

That has been my argument since my first post genius

You don't like that analogy how about this one


A new motorcyclist is riding down the highway
A school bus is waiting to enter the highway
Motorcyclist is speeding
School bus depresses the clutch and the bus rolls slightly forward but stops well before it is any danger to oncoming traffic
Motorcyclist locks his brakes and drops the bike breaking his ankle

The motorcyclist is at fault for speeding
and misreading the bus' intentions, in other words being stupid and not controlling his vehicle
The bus driver shares a portion of the blame for not being in control of her vehicle and presenting the motorcyclist with the situation.

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.

I am not playing games I asked you a direct question
What the hell does it have to do with this case
The FA was designed after the move to litigiousness in our society, long after
The only change that has been affected in me is that I realize that you can be sued for things that nobody would have dreamed of suing for in those years
I would think that the FA crew would be smart enough to realize that also

I have not argued that your theory is correct or not I have simply stated that it has absolutely no bearing here because the FA was designed well into this generation of litigiousness.

If you are just making an observation not strictly pertinent to the case, fine I agree but that does not change FA's responsibility

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

Now it is time for you to stop playing games
I introduced both of those suits in this discussion as a way of showing that FA should have been aware of the out of control lawsuits that people like Stage2 have helped to infect our society with

You keep trying to imply that I agree with these types of judgments even though I keep saying that I don't
Selective amnesia or twisty tactics or do you just do the Beavis giggle when you type in labia?

The cold hard facts are that theses suits are everyday occurrences now deja vu anyone
FA knew or should have known that they were manufacturing a gun modeled after a firearm with a track record of successful lawsuit against it, based on a known defect in that design, when a viable option, that in no way affected the appearance or operation of the gun, was available

Once and for all the FA is not a SAA design is was a modernized version of the SAA design and the primitive design of the Ruger with no historical significance past 1952

Things have changed and it started in the late 60's.

Then FA had ample notice since they started in '83

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.

But you have to follow through with the rest of the scenario
The company knew the design was flawed and still chose to manufacture and sell a gun with a track record of lawsuits, deaths and injuries attributed to that design. They failed to incorporate a design feature that all experts agree would all but eliminated the chance of this type of accident

BTW you say design flaw most say design limitation.

And readily available legal history says dangerously defective, unreasonably even

Jurors obviously suffering from IAPR and illogical thinking. Kinda like you buddy

.And back to the obligatory attack of the simple minded
You lack the intellectual capacity to counter my argument so you resort to the weal minded insults like a third grader on the playground
No wonder you think "He's stupider than me" is a viable defense

I wonder if the paralegals are laughing at you attempt at lawyering

 

[STAGE 2]

That has been my argument since my first post genius

You'll have to excuse me. I thought I was dealing with an open minded reasonable person. Because you started this thing with a preconceived notion you kind of invalidated yourself from the start.

You don't like that analogy how about this one


A new motorcyclist is riding down the highway
A school bus is waiting to enter the highway
Motorcyclist is speeding
School bus depresses the clutch and the bus rolls slightly forward but stops well before it is any danger to oncoming traffic
Motorcyclist locks his brakes and drops the bike breaking his ankle

The motorcyclist is at fault for speeding
and misreading the bus' intentions, in other words being stupid and not controlling his vehicle
The bus driver shares a portion of the blame for not being in control of her vehicle and presenting the motorcyclist with the situation

And again under the law the bus driver isn't liable for anything. "Presenting the biker with a situation" isn't actionable. You seem to have this thing where you like to spread the blame around regardless of the actual facts and regardless of the law.

Another bad example.

 

[joab]

You'll have to excuse me. I thought I was dealing with an open minded reasonable person. Because you started this thing with a preconceived notion you kind of invalidated yourself from the start.

That is the most hypocritical, and frankly idiotic, statement made here yet
I started this with a statement same as you
I defended my statement , same as you

We were actually having a reasonable conversation until you accuse me of not getting the point because I would not agree with you and then you started making stuff up as you went along

My favorite is when you started harping on my not using the word Unreasonable when I used that very same standard in one of my first response to you
When you could not prove your point through deception ,such as claiming that there were no lawsuit against any maker of an SA design. If I could have found it with none of the legal expertise that you claim then you surely could have and have probably found more.You switch gears to trying to harp on the lack of legal expertise that I never claimed to have or attempted exhibit

And again under the law the bus driver isn't liable for anything. "Presenting the biker with a situation" isn't actionable. You seem to have this thing where you like to spread the blame around regardless of the actual facts and regardless of the law.

Another bad example.

Well Esquire
That bad example comes from history
It actually happened in Florida around '85
The motorcyclist sued for $100,000
The bus driver was deemed to be 10% at fault so he only got $10,000
So yes it was actionable just like the FA lawsuit ,unless Webster's definition of actionable is somehow different than yours

I am surprised and somewhat disappointed in you for not seeing that one coming

 

[STAGE 2]

Joab, I've tried to be reasonable and have an open conversation with you. I haven't made anything up nor has there been any deception. At the beginning I took your word that Ruger did not alter their design because of litigation. This was false. Because I have a real job I don't have the time to comb westlaw for the history of products liability as it relates to firearms.

Furthermore I never claimed that there was never a case in which a maufacturer was sued for the single action design. My exact words were "show me a case...". I even qualified my statements with the caveat that I was "assuming they haven't been sued for this before". You were the one who insisted that FA should have been aware of the potential for litigation and as such, the onus was on you to provide documentation.

You did find such a case. However its hardly the gem you'd like it to be. As a 30 year old case in a separate jurisdiction of which the facts are distinct, its not open and shut. More importantly, the laws which governed that case are completely different than they are today. With the varieties of tort reform and the vast changes in products liability law, depending on the jurisdiction, your case may very well be completely moot. Since I don't practice in any of these jurisdictions I can't say for certian, but I am positive that there have been enough substantive changes in the law to where your case is no longer relevant as binding authority.

At the end of the day, all this is irrelevant and will continue to be so primarily because the market is continually flooded with traditional single action designs. Just recently STI introduced their new SAA the "texican" with you guessed it, no transfer bar and the firing pin on the hammer.

I have no doubt that in our litigious culture lawsuits will ensue. Just today on the news I saw a lady is suing the company that makes starburst because they made their product "too chewey". In an atmosphere like this, its a forgone conclusion that firearms manufacturers will be sued. In fact they probably already factor this into their bottom line. I'm quite certian that there isn't a gun company today that hasn't been sued.

So because of all of this, it doesn't make sense for a gun company such as FA to stop making the product that has made them money. If the single action was truly an unreasonably dangerous defect as you suggest, then FAR more people would be injured, and producing such an item would costly that beneficial to a company.

However the opposite is true. The traditional SA action is more popular than ever and its clearly profitable to make them. Why? Because people specifically are seeking out this design. They are not seeking out a revolver for which they can carry 6 safely. If so ruger would have owned the market years ago. On the contrary, people are specifically seeking out a "flawed" design. By definition then the design is not flawed. You may think it is, but your opinion runs contrary to everything the market and the law has demonstrated.

Yes thats correct I said the law. Juries are not returning verdicts burying manufacturers for these revolvers. In fact I wonder if any of the newer makers have been sued and if so what the result was. If I could find you a more recent case where the manufacturer was absolved then would you concede?

Either way, these products are not held in the same esteem as lawn darts, guardless saws or lighters without child safetys (zippos are apparently defective and should change their design according to you, right?). As such its effectively the law saying, this product has a place in the market.

Well Esquire
That bad example comes from history
It actually happened in Florida around '85
The motorcyclist sued for $100,000
The bus driver was deemed to be 10% at fault so he only got $10,000
So yes it was actionable just like the FA lawsuit ,unless Webster's definition of actionable is somehow different than yours

I am surprised and somewhat disappointed in you for not seeing that one coming

Oh I had a feeling, especially with how vague you were describing the facts. However what I said still stands. "Presenting a situation" isn't actionable. Driving negligently is. Your hypo no doubt left out a bunch of juicy details. Either way, its still a crappy comparison. Busses are still made, people still drive.

I have no delusions that any of this is sinking in, I just didn't want you to think that google and a chip on your shoulder is somehow a substitute for an education and experience.

 

[threegun]

You seem to have this thing where you like to spread the blame around regardless of the actual facts and regardless of the law.

Joab, Stage summed up why I have posted the recent change in thinking that you say has no bearing in this case. Folks like you refusing to accept responsibility and spreading the blame. These same folks suing for damages caused by their own negligence. You are not logical and your mind doesn't seem to be capable of understanding that without an action by the informed consumer his leg would still be attached. It doesn't matter that FA knew of the defect because they detailed how to remedy this defect. The consumer bought or kept the revolver even after finding out its defect thereby accepting it. The consumer violate factory recommendations for safe carry. Your argument is illogical. All attempts to convince you have failed. This debate is over for me and yes you have lost. You are just to illogical to understand it.

Please before you come back saying that we just don't understand your argument, we do. Fortunately for us we haven't been affected by such illogical and frankly pathetic blame spreading thinking.

Example motorist one stops slighlty short of the stop sign. Motorist two is late to stop by milliseconds and slams into M1. Logically motorist 2 is at fault however motorist 2 thinks like Joab and sues because had motorist 1 stopped at the stop sign and not slightly short of it motorist two would have had time to stop. While it may be true that had motorist 1 stopped at the sign and not early motorist 2 would have been able to stop and the accident wouldn't have happened, motorist 2 is at fault under the law and logically because he alone allowed his vehicle to strike another. Someday someone may successfully sue for this very scenario and I'm sure you or your kind will rule the jury.

 

[joab]

All of your simplistic insults and revisionisms aside

The company knew or should have known that the design had a known history of lawsuit based on defective design your above statement about Ruger does not allow you to deny that anymore
There was a viable fix that would have in no way have affected the appearance or performance of the gun as you have erroneously stated before the gun went into production
The gun that this design was based on did in fact incorporate this fix in the design long before FA copied it.

Are any of those facts even remotely disputable

 

[joab]

Threegun thinking that if you tell a lie long enough it will become truth huh?

Folks like you refusing to accept responsibility and spreading the blame.

Someday someone may successfully sue for this very scenario and I'm sure you or your kind will rule the jury.

Already happened genius RIF much

however motorist 2 thinks like Joab

I presented a case from history so that Stage would come back with the predictable "bad example, that's not actionable" routine just to illustrate that he was full of mud

This debate is over for me .

How many times are you going to say this

Please before you come back saying that we just don't understand your argument, we do

I fully believe that you do, you have chosen to lie your way around it because you lack the intellectual capacity to actually address it

 

[Marko Kloos]

Take it to email...this thread tipped the signal-to-noise ratio a few pages ago.