Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dumb decisions or bad precidents do not make the filing of the lawsuit itself dumb. The guy got a lot of money for an accident that even the "dumb" jury thought was at least 1/2 his fault. I would not put that in the category of dumb.

There is no such thing as a dumb question or a dumb lawsuit, just dumb answers and dumb verdicts.
 
Let it Bleed

Let it Bleed said:
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.

Good post! But utility function of each individual in regards to things such as firearms are not the same.

There are people who prefer Series 70 1911A1 and those who prefer Series 80 1911A1. If I'm not mistaken, STI and Kimber Warrior are Series 70 1911A1. If someone who wanted a Series 80 1911A1 bought Series 70 type 1911A1 and through negligence, injured himself, and caused all 1911A1 to be Series 80, it results in harm done to all the people who wanted Series 70 1911A1.

Also, look at Para-Ordnance LDA for people who wanted 1911A1 pistol but w/o cocked-and-locked feature.

STI and Kimber Warrior are still in sale with Series 70 safety, Series 80 Colt are still in sale, and so is P-O LDA...different people want different things, even in regards to safety, just like every other product feature.

Market, not regulation and not government, is the best arbiter of safety at what price. Safety should come at a price for people who want to pay for it and desire that particular feature. It should not be forced on people via lawsuits.

--John
 
Last edited:
Not getting off that easy. Using your argument of design flaws, if the 1911 wasn't flawed it wouldn't be produced now with a firing pin block. Would it??
OK genius if that is true wouldn't that mean that the design flaw was fixed by a forward thinking company
Why could FA not do this, actually why did FA choose to discard the feature that was already incorporated in the design in the first place

And again I ask you
If the FA design is not flawed why does it take extraordinary precautions to make the gun
Don't run away this time

1911 was designed with a safety that prevents the hammer from contacting the round without any extraordinary precaution beyond the design by the gun
Can you show me an instance where a 1911 user used the gun to the total limits of it's design capabilities and shot himself

I can show you an example of an FA user who did
 
But I am still trying to figure out how the FA, which uses the flawed SAA design is somehow the same as the 1911 which addressed and fixed the problem of the SAA type hammer design flaw in it's first incarnation
 
IIRC, the series 80 mechanism was done for "drop tests" or the threat of same in some jusridiction.

And when someone who is litigious drops a series 70 on the hammer, and said hammer breaks and actually goes off, and then actually wounds, then the series 70 maker will get sued.

Its all economics. A manufacturer chooses how much to risk in the design and marketing of a product. Sometimes its cheaper to risk a verdict than to change something.

WildwhatanicedayAlaska
 
Sigh.... Even among fellow gun owners there is no consenus. No wonder we are such easy targets for those who would seek to ban them. I am actualy surprised to see some here would be in support of a lawsuit against a gun manufacture. Especialy when the gun was not defective.


Shotgun (shaking my head in disbelief) Minister
 
Especialy when the gun was not defective.
Then why must extraordinary measures be taken to make the gun safe to carry?

Why will no one answer this question?

I am actualy surprised to see some here would be in support of a lawsuit against a gun manufacture.
I am surprised that there are some that would support a gun company just because they are a gun company
Chauvinism is ugly no matter what form it takes
 
I am actualy surprised to see some here would be in support of a lawsuit against a gun manufacture.

Why not? We have quite a large number of reasonable, educated comptemplative folks who dont yell hosanna at the sight of a gun.

Its a gun...a metal (or plastic if you are newfangeled) tool...not a reason for life.

Especialy when the gun was not defective.

It was a historically unsafe design and therefore defective in accord with law.
There are NUMEROUS unsafe gun designs...Remington triggers and safeties come to mind.

The problem is when folks confuse legal defect with political defect.

WildandtherearesuchcasesAlaska
 
If as you say the 1911 series 70 is designed to be carried with a loaded chamber why did colt come out with the series 80? To avoid what and for what reason?
Beats the hell outta me.
Why do any manufacturers make design changes.
It certainly wasn't to prevent NDs when the gun was used to it's full potential as designed

Many use to carry the 1911 chamber empty to avoid accidental or better yet negligent discharges. It was also a well known practice to do so. So what?
Many people separate the mags from their guns as an extra level of protection from NDs, but it is not required to make the gun safe or to correct a deficiency in the guns design
Carrying hammer down on an empty chamber is a precaution beyond the guns design that must be taken in order to make the FA safe to carry.

If my SAA is sitting in my holster all chambers loaded can it fire all alone?
Was that alleged in the lawsuit?

It wasn't until the 60's that this supposed "flaw" even became an issue. When Ruger was sued. Prior to the liberal movement in the 60's did anyone sue any manufacture for this "design flaw"?
Then FA has had ample notice of the flaw, and it was '73 and they weren't sued into it. The retro fit campaign was done because now that they proved that a better design existed they may be sued for ND with the old design.


And as I have said before we don't live in the 60's anymore
We live in a society that will sue you if their kid picks on your dog and gets bitten
You would think that someone smart enough to run a company would be smart enough to realize this
 
WA, I'm NOT questioning the mechanical safety

Wildalaska said:
IIRC, the series 80 mechanism was done for "drop tests" or the threat of same in some jusridiction.

And when someone who is litigious drops a series 70 on the hammer, and said hammer breaks and actually goes off, and then actually wounds, then the series 70 maker will get sued.

Its all economics. A manufacturer chooses how much to risk in the design and marketing of a product. Sometimes its cheaper to risk a verdict than to change something.

I'm NOT questioning the mechanical safety. My point is that safety comes at a price and it should not be forced on manufacturers via lawsuit. It should be determined by buyers who desire it like any other feature and are willing to pay for it.

Different safety on current Colt, STI, Kimber, and Para-Ordnance illustrate that market is the best arbiter of safety at what price. Some people like less safety and some people like more.

What do you do when some people want unsafe design for their own personal reason and other people want safer design for some other reason?


--John
 
related posts from Cato

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/03/19/the-negative-side-effects-of-government-safety-rules/


The Negative Side-Effects of Government Safety Rules

Politicians and bureaucrats frequently impose rules and regulations to protect us from the risks of life. But even if one assumes that all this red tape is well-meaning, the consequences often are negative. The costs to the economy often are the most obvious downside of regulation, but sometimes safety regulations actually make us less safe. John Stossel’s Townhall.com column notes that safety caps on drugs actually have increased the number of children who get poisoned:

A joint study by the Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute found that government regulations that are supposed to save lives actually end up killing more people. Why? Because safety laws almost always have unintended bad consequences.

In 1972, the FDA passed a law requiring child safety caps on many medications. It was supposed to keep kids from being poisoned by drugs like aspirin. But there is an unexpected side effect. Because safety caps are hard to get off, some people — particularly older people — leave them off, and some parents, feeling safer with the cap, leave the aspirin where kids can reach it. A study of this “lulling effect” concluded that an additional 3,000 children have been poisoned by aspirin because of the regulation.
 
What do you do when some people want unsafe design for their own personal reason and other people want safer design for some other reason?
Then you weigh the risks against the rewards, just like everything else in life
The Negative Side-Effects of Government Safety Rules
But guns are exempt from safety regs so they have to make up their own standards
Because of this exemption they are more prone to product liability lawsuits they can't point to some set of standards handed down and say we followed what y'all told us to
 
Joab

joab said:
Then you weigh the risks against the rewards, just like everything else in life

yes, but weighing of risk vs. rewards should be done by the market. If I want that feature, be it safety or some other thing, it should be based on buy/not buy behavior of consumers. Not via lawsuit.

--John
 
Pointless. The firearm was not defective nor is the design. the same person claiming it is then claims to be unable to see the comparison in the 1911. Another wit pops up and freely and plainly admits it's purely a matter of economics driven by litigation.

And yet the determined argument, existing purely because someone can't stand the concept of being, let alone admitting, wrong continues.

End of discussion: There was no defect. Victory does not lessen stupidity(as regards the lawsuit or this thread). Litigation does not define defectiveness. Simple responsible precautions are not in any way "extraordinary" actions. And, repeatedly saying nobody has answered a question when the question has been repeatedly answered does not strengthen one's position nor credibility.

Carry on. :rolleyes:
 
FA still has the option of producing their flawed product
If enough people still want it then the rewards were worth the risk

I came across some interesting info while in this discussion
I don't know where the keys to my safe are right now so I can't get my Cattleman and BlackHawk out to test it's validity

SAA did not have recessed chambers so the gun could be carried fully loaded with the hammer down between the cylinders using the case heads as a cradle to prevent ADs
Ruger recessed their chambers which eliminated this meager safety feature, they corrected this flaw in '73
FA for some reason resurrected this doubly flawed design

Appx 600 people have been killed or maimed by NDs with the Old Model Ruger single action design, what would be the benefit to bringing that design back?
 
End of discussion: There was no defect.
Then why does it take extraordinary precautions to make the gun safe

Simple responsible precautions are not in any way "extraordinary" actions.
Perhaps you should look up extraordinary, it doesn't always have to mean superhuman or supernatural
It simply means beyond what is ordinary

Ordinary precautions would be following the four rules
These ordinary precautions do not make this gun incapable of firing and injuring someone
If you argue that they do then you must explain why the manufacturer suggests the extraordinary precaution of not fully loading the gun as it is designed to be
And, repeatedly saying nobody has answered a question when the question has been repeatedly answered does not strengthen one's position nor credibility
.True
But the fact that in fact nobody will answer the question and the people that it is aimed at choose instead to have little hissy fits and engage in simplistic personal attacks certainly does

the same person claiming it is then claims to be unable to see the comparison in the 1911
So tell me,in the context of this discussion, how does the SAA and FA design which can fire when carried as it is designed to be compare to the 1911 which cannot.
The 1911 was designed with a mechanism that would positively prevent the hammer from impacting the firing pin when the gun was carried as it was designed
The FA was designed with no mechanism to prevent the hammer from engaging the pin when the gun was carried as it was designed.
 
Joab, raised cost and individual utility function

joab said:
FA still has the option of producing their flawed product
If enough people still want it then the rewards were worth the risk

Threat of a litigation or past successful litigation creates a drag and raises the cost of the product. Say, I have 25% probability that I would be sued for $10M during next 10 years. So expected cost=25% x $10M or $2.5M. I expect to produce and sell 10,000 revolvers with flawed design. Profit margin has to include the expected payoff (cost) of $2.5M.

joab said:
Appx 600 people have been killed or maimed by NDs with the Old Model Ruger single action design, what would be the benefit to bringing that design back?

Individual utility functions (desires/satisfaction that we derive) vary from people to people for their own unique reasons, just like chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream. I know that I'm not wise enough to question each individual's wants. That's like asking why some people buy Kimber Warrior vs. Colt vs. P-O LDA 1911A1.

If an individual feel unsafe with Old Model Ruger single design, then they shouldn't buy one.

--John
 
Threat of a litigation or past successful litigation creates a drag and raises the cost of the product. Say, I have 25% probability that I would be sued for $10M during next 10 years. So expected cost=25% x $10M or $2.5M. I expect to produce and sell 10,000 revolvers with flawed design. Profit margin has to include the expected payoff (cost) of $2.5M.
The FA has every right and reason to enter these figures in their benefits versus risks equations

And just so I'm clear what are the benefits of the FA design

It can't be a purist mentality, I could understand that

It probably isn't enhanced action My Vaquero is much smoother than my Cattleman and I don't remember any magical feel to the old three screw compared to my New Model BH

What exactly would be lost in the gun if a $10 transfer bar was included on this $1000 plus gun
Especially when we remember that the guns were originally designed on Ruger BlackHawks which had the T bars

If an individual feel unsafe with Old Model Ruger single design, then they shouldn't buy one.
Which is exactly why Ruger designed the T-bars in the first place
Now we're back to the benefit and risk thing again
And you have to try hard to find an unmolested Old Model anymore
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top