Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, so the lawyer is a known shark, but he did get Randy Weaver off.
Click to expand...

Yep they are all whores, but the good whore is your whore, right? :)

WildParanoidsarenotparanoidbecausethey'reparanoidbutbecausetheykeepputtingthemselvesf***g
idiotsdeliberatelyintoparanoidsituationsAlaska
 
Somehow alleging Insurance Companies are victims is like trying to feel sorry for Adolf because he only had one cojone.
Click to expand...
Even though they get to foot the bill I don't feel sorry for em even a little They get payback when they raise your rates or drop your coverage.

The tort system needs to be reformed. Simplistic viewpoints wont do that.
Click to expand...
True, but simplistic veiwpoints make me feel awfully good at least until those tort people are willing to be reformed. :p
 
Interesting. You would think that a $1600-$2100 revolver would at least have a transfer bar. Guess they will pretty soon now, eh?

I just looked at the manual for the Model 83.

They do really make a point of not handling/carrying the revolver with a loaded chamber in line with the hammer and barrel.

According to the manual, there is a half cock position (only to be used for loading and unloading), as well as a special hammer-safety position.

I suppose Freedom Arms figured that anyone with enough money to actually buy one of their guns would be smart enough to read the manual and follow basic safety rules.
 
They do really make a point of not handling/carrying the revolver with a loaded chamber in line with the hammer and barrel.
Click to expand...
I have always thought that was ridiculous. Why create a firearm that only holds 6 rounds and then design it in such a way that the only way to carry it safely is to reduce it's capacity by almost 20% when carrying.
 
Playboypenguin said:
....I have always thought that was ridiculous. Why create a firearm that only holds 6 rounds and then design it in such a way that the only way to carry it safely is to reduce it's capacity by almost 20% when carrying.
Click to expand...

Hummmmm......sort of like a 9mm that can hold 17-or-19 round magazines.....anti-gunners would have you believe 10 rounds are a better choice for the publics safety.
 
The bigger question, in my mind, is what kind of holster was he using? Did it have a hammer-thong to retain the weapon?

If so, why was he not using it?

If not, what kind of retention system did the holster use and why did he select that one?

ANY time I've carried a SA revolver on horseback I have always used the hammer-thong loop over the gun's hammer to secure the gun. I make sure it's in place before mounting or dismounting too.

Regardless of half-cock or not, it sounds like the plaintiff failed to properly secure his firearm, did not understand the proper operation of his FA-83, did not comprehend the safety warnings in the manual (if he ever read them).

The idea that any and all consumer products should be designed and engineered to be "safe" so the consumer does not have to educate himself or think about his actions is misguided. Are generators faulty because they don't contain oil in the sump when you buy them and burn up when run right out of the box? Why don't band saws have eye guards and barriers to keep your hands out of the way? Why aren't there sensors in car doors to prevent them from closing on children's fingers? The list is endless.

As said elsewhere -- stupid should hurt.
 
I have heard that the particular model of Freedom Arms he was firing did not have a half-cock notch. The hammer was partially pulled back when he opened his coat, but was not pulled back all the way. They are alledging it caught on the coat somehow and the hammer was partially cocked.

Then the hammer fell forward, and since there was no half cock, it hit the cartridge with enough force to fire.

If this is the case, I would bet that the argument was that since there was no half-cock, the weapon was poorly designed, and therefore contributed to the discharge.
Click to expand...

Even still as the owner of the gun it was his duty to know that. It was also his duty to know that his coat would catch the hammer. Maybe it was an accident. They happen sometimes. But say Freedom Arm's is to blame is like saying that if I slam my finger in a car door. I can sue FoMoCo for not having a " Finger slam prevention device." Oh wait maybe I can.... This whole lawsuit is just plain stupid.

Shotgun
 
Okay, this one riles me as a FA 83 owner. First, the manual specifically states to not carry the revolver with a loaded chamber under the firing pin. This means the FA 83 in .454 Casull is a four-shooter (there are five chambers). Second, the manual explains the use of the safety position in lots of detail. Third, my FA 83 does not even lock up until right before the hammer is fully cocked. So a falling hammer would just cause the firing pin to hit the cylinder and not the primer. Fourth, it takes a fair amount of force to cock the hammer as the cylinder is somewhat large and heavy, and the noises (clicks) the revolver makes are very distinctive and loud. The cocking sounds are loud enough that some people take to holding back the trigger while thumbing the hammer back when hunting in an effort to not startle game animals. Fifth, proper carrying of the gun involves a hammer shroud in the holster or a thong.

So how did his revolver get into the condition where it could be fired?
 
Some folks (not all) seem to have missed the part where they assigned 50 percent of the blame to the owner, and reduced his award accordingly from $600,000 to $300,000. He was seeking $10,000,000 originally. :eek:

Defenses in these cases are expensive. So are appeals. Freedom Arms may be sighing in relief, and may decide paying the piper is the best way out of this mess. And adding a transfer bar, with some additional billboards on the barrels, eh?

Not saying it is right, just saying it . . . is.
 
Does it make me a bad person that I am comfortable with manufacturers being held accountable for shoddy, cheap designs?

Poorly designed firearms = More accidental discharges = Fuel for the anti's.

I've got no problem with making guns. But, let's make 'em right, yeah?
 
Nothing shoddy or cheap about these guns. If the owner had followed the instructions printed repeatedly in the catalogs and manual this would have been a harmless error.

Please, get your facts straight before you slander a good company.
 
What!!
Read the instructions?
Never!
We can't be havin' with people goin' around readin' the goldurned instructions

Jefferson
 
The only thing I got to add to this is , the next time you curse lawyerlocks on guns just look at the jury and gunowner involved in this case . Can you really blame them now for installing the bleeping things????
 
The defending attorney certainly pointed out the user manual. The plaintiff's attorney then probably pointed out the practically every modern revolver has a transfer bar safety to prevent this exact type of accident.

Sorry Freedom Arms. You may have a manual that says your five shooter is a four shooter but that is just plain stupid. They should have never gone down the path that left the gun able to be fired without pulling the trigger.

I demand strict adherence to the four rules and never excuse a shooter who violates them. I also demand that modern fire arms manufacturers manufacture their products in a way that will not kill someone who has adhered to those rules. Freedom Arms is lucky they only got hit for $300,000. They got off easy probably because of the manual. At the same time the jury sent a message to FA to clean up their act and manufacture a proper product.

For the cash they charge you should not have a 5 shot revolver that will only hold 4 and you should not have to worry about the gun discharging without a finger on the trigger.
 
How many other manufacturers of SAA revolvers manufacture revolvers without a transfer bar? I just took it for assumed that an SAA revolver meant carrying with one empty? If I didn't have this attitude would this have been me, because yeah I read the manuals on all my guns:rolleyes:
The thing that really boils my water on this one is wondering if this is going to be the end of it. Is there going to be laws that reflect how the anti-gunners like to overreact to bad things happening.
 
You may have a manual that says your five shooter is a four shooter but that is just plain stupid. They should have never gone down the path that left the gun able to be fired without pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...
Why is it stupid to expect people to follow instructions? Why is Freedom Arms at fault for using the same basic action design that Colt has used since 1873 on the Model P and still uses today? The FA 83 is nothing more than an oversized precision manufactured version of the Colt SAA. Is Colt going to be forced to add a transfer bar safety to the Model P? FA made more than a reasonable effort to let users know that this design can be fired without pulling the trigger.

That being said FA does manufacture the FA 97, a smaller (even smaller than the Colt Model P) revolver. The FA 97 does use a transfer bar safety. I suspect the fact that the newer design does have the transfer bar is why the jury assigned liability in this case as it would appear to the layman that FA knew the older design was unsafe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top