Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Today if a car maker ignored including the most basic of safety features in a car they would be sued out of existence and with good reason. Gun manufacuters are no different.
Click to expand...
Huge difference between vehicles and firearms under Federal law. It is illegal to produce a vehicle that does not meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). That is why one cannot purchase a new vehicle that does not have a Supplemental Restraint System (SRS), air bags to most people.

Firearm designs are specifically excluded from safety regulation by Act of Congress. Vehicles are specifically addressed and regulated by Federal legislation.
 
someone is going to sue firearm manufacturers because a gun went off when someone pulled the trigger
Click to expand...
Already happened
13 year old shot his teacher. Family of teacher sued the manufacturer becauses the gun went off when the trigger was pulled

For all of those comparing what our forefathers did
We don't live in those times anymore any business entity that does not realize that is asking for a lawsuit
 
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.
Click to expand...

Huh? Why CAN'T you or shouldn't you use the half-cock position for things besides loading & unloading? If there's no transfer bar, then why not keep it at half-cock to keep the pin off the primer?
 
If there's no transfer bar, then why not keep it at half-cock to keep the pin off the primer?
Click to expand...
At half cock, the bolt is in the unlocked position, and the cylinder can rotate to allow loading and unloading. In the hammer safety position, the bolt is locked, and the cylinder is locked. When properly carried, the empty chamber should be under the firing pin at this time. The hammer safety position basically is just to the rear of the "fired" position and ensures the hammer does not contact the firing pin. One gets to this position by just cocking the hammer a bit and you can feel and see when the hammer is held in the hammer safety position. Even if the hammer fell from the hammer safety position, it is unlikely there would be enough force to detonate the primer.

So, if one carries the FA 83 in the hammer safety position, one only need cock the hammer and fire. If one carries the gun at the half-cock position, the hammer may need to be cocked, the hammer lowered, and the hammer cocked again before the gun is ready to be fired. This is because one cannot be sure where the empty chamber ends up if the cylinder bolt is unlocked and is also due to the tolerances that FA holds in manufacturing. Unlike most revolvers, it is very difficult to see which chambers are loaded due to the FA cylinder filling just about all of the frame window. Thus, a live chamber could end up under the hammer when the hammer is held at the half-cock position or the empty could end up under the firing pin when one means to shoot.

The FA 83 revolvers are hunting guns and the four-shot capacity is not an issue in the intended usage.
 
guns & cars being apples & orange issue

the fact that cars are regulated and licensing is required for usage vs. guns being an unlicensed product doesn't mean it's like comparing apples and oranges. Both guns and cars can be made much, much safer, whether they are regulated or licensed product.

If you look at my posts carefully, the posts show that both products can be made much, much safer with existing technology if cost is not a factor.

1. Just about any product, whether licensed or regulated or not, can be misused. For example, I see dumb warnings like not to imbibe cleaning solution or that electrical product should not be used in water. BTW, all those stupid warnings come at a price and ultimately, all the consumers are paying for the cost of product liability lawyers so prevalent in our society today(higher price for the product and/or lower profit margin for the firm, resulting in cost to investors).

2. Just about any product, whether licensed or regulated or not, can be made safer.

It's possible to use AI(artificial intelligence) and voice activated technology so that AD(accidental discharge) is reduced to close to zero level. Off course, that would probably drive the price per gun to tens of thousand of dollars at least.

It's also possible to make car much, much safer (more shock proof features, include AI to make it idiot proof, etc.). This would drive the price closer to VIP type car.

3. safety features comes at a cost like everything else. Not everyone can afford or want a gun that is super accurate and handles beautifully like S&W Model 41 or SIG 210. Safety features come at a price just like everything else, from good sight to good trigger and all other features.

4. By mandating that a product should include these safety features or the manufacturer is liable, you are screwing up all the people who want the product w/o those features.

For example, a young couple with growing family who lives in a crime prone neighborhood may be able to afford only a very inexpensive but a reliable gun w/o firing pin safety or transfer bar safety (but it's OK, because they keep the chamber empty until they want to shoot it). Alternatively, another shooter may want the gun w/o the safety for his/her personal reason just like all the traditional SAA shooters or people who love Series 70 style 1911A1.

Airbag and seat belt does raise the cost of manufacturing cars. If you think that all product should include every possible safety features, then significant percentage of population would not be able to afford it.

Ultimately, we are responsible for our own safety and shouldn't place the blame on others if we misuse the product or did not keep ourselves informed.

--John
 
Last edited:
If a product is designed in such way that it is foreseeable that injury could result, and if the risk of injury could have been reduced by an alternative design, then a product is said to be defective in its design. When looking at alternative designs, the court will look at the costs associated with the alternative designs, whether the proposed alternative would in fact have reduced the foreseeable risks of harm associated with the product, and whether the failure to use the alternative design made the product unreasonably unsafe at the time it was manufactured.

Learned Hand's famous B<pL formula in the Carroll Towing case is designed to increase the overall social welfare. It is basically a cost-benefit analysis in which B = the burden or cost associated in preventing the harm and p = the probability that such an accident may occur and L= the degee or severity of the injury to be prevented. Therefore if the likelihood of the accident multiplied by the severity of the harm outweighs the burden, then the cost of preventitive measures is outweighed by the harm to be avoided and should be incurred. Conversely, if the cost to prevent an accident outweighs the probability and consequent severity of the injury, then the preventative measures should not be required. Essentially it is an awareness by the courts that we live in a world of finite resouces that should be allocated in such a way that it does the most good. Actually, a pistol made prior to the transfer bar design would most likely not be found defective, even though this is precisely why Ruger will retrofit a transfer bar in any of its older pistols free of charge.

I would even go so far as to say that Freedom Arms could continue making their pistol without a transfer bar and win a subsequent similar lawsuit, if they don't tout the safety of their product and insure that potential buyers are fully apprized and warned of the dangers inherent in an older design. Since there apparently were not any punitive damages awarded, the jury evidently found that the defendant's action were not outrageous or particularly egregious. Still, a transfer bar would be the simplest and cheapest solution for Freedom Arms to impliment.
 
The issue at hand is not about whether certain safety features are better or should be required, but rather the freedom to manufacture and own simpler designs and use them appropriately.

To take the car analogy in a slightly different direction, I drive a car with no ABS. I prefer it without ABs, as I drive it on race tracks and like having the ability to lock up all 4 tires should I choose. However, I need to be, and am, aware of the limitations of a non-ABS equipped car. If I need to panic stop, and don't slam the pedal to the floor, locking up all 4 tires, and hope for the best. I threshold brake, making sure NOT to lock up the tires.

The same applies with firearms. In most situations, for most people, transfer bars are probably safer and better choice. But that does not mean that it is or should be the best choice for everyone. Some people may like the simplicity of not having a transfer bar, and don't mind the penalty of leaving a chamber empty. That is their choice, and their decision.

But pushing the boundaries of a products' design into dangerous territory is NOT the fault of the product, it is the fault of the user. If I need to stop quick in my non-ABS car and mash the pedal, locking up the tires, and slam into whatever situation I needed to avoid, that is not the car manufacturer's fault. It is my MY fault. I bought a product with certain limitations, and did not use it appropriately. Likewise, it sounds like this man bought a gun and did not use it appropriately, and lost his leg as a result.
 
If I need to stop quick in my non-ABS car and mash the pedal, locking up the tires, and slam into whatever situation I needed to avoid, that is not the car manufacturer's fault. It is my MY fault. I bought a product with certain limitations, and did not use it appropriately.
Click to expand...
The big difference is that standard brakes are a proven safe design when used within the legal limits, which you agreed to follow under penalty of law when you applied for your license, of the vehicle that they are installed on
If other drivers cause you to have to suddenly and unsafely brake then you may have legal remedies against them

The SAA trigger design is a proven unsafe design which takes extraordinary precautions in conflict with the guns design to overcome

The FA is based on the Ruger Black Hawk design the early FAs were actually just reworked BlackHawks
In order for FA to developed a gun with no transfer bar they had to intentionally disable that feature and in doing so they created a firearm with a known and easily fixable design flaw.

If carrying in a holster under a coat is an unsafe action then I want in on the class action lawsuit against Galco and Bianchi

I do agree though that someone buying that level of firepower should be aware of and capable of performing those precautions.
 
EVERY GUN IS DANGEROUS!

EVERY GUN IS CAPABLE OF FIRING WHEN YOU DON'T EXPECT IT TO!

ALWAYS KEEP THE MUZZLE POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION!

NEVER POINT A GUN AT ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT!

Like I told my dad this morning, "This jerk shoots himself and gets rewarded for it."

If he didn't like the way it operated he shouldn't have bought it.

Unfortunately this jerk hails from my state.

This guy showed total disreguard for the safety of himself and everyone around him by not making sure his firearm was secure and safe. Shot himself in the leg and blames the arms maker that he bought it from.
 
Last edited:
This guy showed total disreguard for the safety of himself and everyone around him by not making sure his firearm was secure and safe.
Click to expand...
Hey Mr Awesome
The gun was in his holster
 
"If a product is designed in such way that it is foreseeable that injury could result, and if the risk of injury could have been reduced by an alternative design, then a product is said to be defective in its design."

Every gun is designed in such a way that it is foreseeable that an injury could result. Like it or not, guns are designed for inflicting injury. Hate to sound like an antigunner here, but the longer we deny the truth, the better the antigunners arguments hold up.

An anternative design could be that no bullet comes out of the end of the gun.

Taking into account that all guns are capable of inflicting injury we could add every safety feature imaginable: mag disconnect safety, grip safety, manual safety, and an integral lock on every gun, and it would still be capable of inflicting injury, and people who use guns for defense or hunting would not buy them if they didn't inflict injury.

By buying any gun we are acknowledging that there is an inherent risk. Maybe less safe with fewer safety features, maybe not, but the fact is there is a risk, and if we let the courts decide for us what risk we are allowed to take, sooner or later we will not have any guns.

I saw the quote somewhere, "Ezz gon! Eez not safe!" If you want a gun without a transfer bar, then buy a gun without a transfer bar, but read the manual and be careful. If you want a gun with a transfer bar, then buy a gun with a transfer bar, but read the manual and be careful. If you want a gun with three seperate safeties, then buy a gun with all those safeties, but read the manual and be careful.
 
The anti-gunners will have a field-day with the thinking proposed here by some. Can you imagine the logic behind a ban on every weapon without the latest mandated combination of safety features? It's for you own safety. The Courts have provided this decision, based on the findings of ordinary citizens, just like you and me.

Sure, you can keep all of your weapons, you just can't use them. They would be banned from ranges, public areas and conveyances, and for self-defense. Wouldn't want any unnecessarily flawed weapons shooting the wrong person. Listen to the ordinary citizens wisdom.

There is an active movement in many states that is trying to this very thing with automobiles. So far, the price of such legislation has defeated it. Think that the average citizen will consider that with guns?? After all, you only need ONE, and they aren't ALL that expensive, anyway.

The idea that a product must be "safer" can be pushed too far. Replacing responsibility with technology will kill our Secong Amendment participation far more quickly than any ourtight ban. The loss of less expensive weapons, as they are restricted for safety features, will ruin the ability of most shooters to attract new members to our sport and way of life.

Be careful what you wish for, as you may just get it.
 
For me it is simple. This design is unsafe and everybody knows it right...........This guy bought this gun knowing the design was unsafe........ correct? Knowing it was unsafe he decided to carry it improperly anyway...... correct. (the evidence did say his jacket pulled the hammer meaning he didn't have a hammer strap)(he was probably carrying it with the hammer on a live round also). This lawsuit is ridiculous as the customer knew of the guns flaws and purchased it anyway.

To the car comparison I have a better comparison. My airbag is designed to work with the seatbelt to prevent injury in the event of a collision. If I knowingly ride without my seat belt and the airbag injures me during the collision can I sue the car company for my injury caused by the airbag itself?

It can be argued that my Glock pistol is adherently unsafe compared to da pistols with a manual safety. The list goes on. At some point one must take responsibility for his or her actions. Its pretty disgusting that adults defend the irresponsibility of the individual.

His raincoat pulled the hammer back

His gun had all chambers loaded

He failed to strap the hammer

All these failures on the owners part caused the gun to launch a huge chunk of lead which it obviously did properly.
 
The bottom line is that safety is in the head of the user. Not in laws or the stupid legalese that tries to reduce human action and probability to legal formulae. When lawyers start argueing about woulda, coulda, shoulda, we the non lawyers lose.

Fact: the man was carrying a lethal weapon.

Fact: carrying a lethal weapon confers on the user, the burden of reasonable safety for himself and for others.

Fact: No amount of legislation can assure safety.

Fact: When individual freedom is reduced in the name of safety which is brought about by a perpetual state of fear generated by those who profit by it, we the people lose some more of our God given rights. Helmets don't make motorcycles safe, seat belts don't make cars safe. Only the training and awareness of the user can affect safety.

Fact: the man shot himself in the leg because he didn't make sure that the gun was safe. The first thing you do when carrying a gun and entering your residence is unload the gun. Carrying a single action gun without a hammer restraint on the holster is stupid. And unsafe. End of argument.:)
 
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling . . . ."

Just because something is an inherently dangerous product does not exempt it from safety considerations in its design.

A good business deal = both sides are happy;
a good court decision = both sides are unhappy.

Just the nature of things. If two people can reach an agreement on their own, by definition each is satisfied. If two people cannot reach an agreement on their own and need a third party to intervene, it is extemely unlikely that any fair resolution will make both happy.

What a jackpot! 300k before costs and legal fees for a blown off leg - any takers? Maybe he deserved nothing or maybe he deserved more, but I am damn glad I'm not him and I doubt anyone would be willing to trade places with him.
 
Would a transfer bar, or equivilent, have made the gun less desirable somehow? Was a similar, yet safer, gun available giving the customer the choice?

If two guns were for sale the only diffence being some sort of transfer bar type safety, who would buy the one without the safety and why?
 
If you aren't capable of properly handling a revolver without a transfer bar buy one with one.

If you aren't capable of correctly assigning blame for the negligent handling of a revolver without a transfer bar buy one with one.

Let it Bleed,
What a jackpot! 300k before costs and legal fees for a blown off leg - any takers? Maybe he deserved nothing or maybe he deserved more, but I am damn glad I'm not him and I doubt anyone would be willing to trade places with him.
Click to expand...

He bought the gun, knew its limitations, and choose to improperly carry it. Whether or not anyone wants to trade places with him is irrelevant. Whether or not another gun is safer is irrelevant. He chose KNOWINGLY to buy and carry the less safe revolver. He chose to carry it unsafely. He activated the revolver inside his holster. I feel real bad for him but he does not deserve a penny.

Some of you guys would probably sue after signing a waiver before a dangerous but fun activity. By signing the waiver you are accepting the danger as is.

By buying the gun you assume the danger associated with it. Had the gun failed causing the ND then he would have justifiable recourse. I this case the owner failed on several levels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top