That has been my argument since my first post geniusIf 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.
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 am not playing games I asked you a direct questionI 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.
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
Now it is time for you to stop playing gamesFurther 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
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
Then FA had ample notice since they started in '83Things have changed and it started in the late 60's.
But you have to follow through with the rest of the scenarioThe 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.
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
And readily available legal history says dangerously defective, unreasonably evenBTW you say design flaw most say design limitation.
.And back to the obligatory attack of the simple mindedJurors obviously suffering from IAPR and illogical thinking. Kinda like you buddy
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