Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

[Wildalaska]

It affects producers (e.g. FA) by raising the price of product which it sells.

Thats factored into tort liability. the cheaper the cost of modification, the higher liability will be. FA could fix the problem for a nominal (in tort terms) cost.

However, its greatest cost to the society as a whole lies in unseen products which never makes it to the market because the potential cost of litigation is too high.

BS...give me an example.

WA

 

[joab]

there are nominal price (what you pay) and real price (inflation/cost-of-living adjusted price). While people are often amazed by how cheap things were so many decades back, in general, relative to rise in cost of living, most things, including guns, are getting cheaper. About the only exception to this are pre-86 NFA full auto guns because they can no longer be imported or made.

OK but what was the increase in price either to the consumer or the company after the 1973 advent of the transfer bar or after the '83 mass retrofit

Do you know how much a transfer bar cost
Consumer level about $10

When FA started production of this gun in 83 it was a part that they chose to leave out not one that they would have had to add

 

[theinvisibleheart]

WA, talk to an aeronautics professor about his/her industry

Quote:
It affects producers (e.g. FA) by raising the price of product which it sells.
Thats factored into tort liability. the cheaper the cost of modification, the higher liability will be. FA could fix the problem for a nominal (in tort terms) cost.

Each firm knows more about its own internal operations and its own market segment than outsiders. So you are making an assumption that you know more about FA's internal operation and what FA's customers want than FA does.

What happens if majority of FA's market segment don't want the safety modification?

Quote:
However, its greatest cost to the society as a whole lies in unseen products which never makes it to the market because the potential cost of litigation is too high.

BS...give me an example.

Non-military and non-commercial aviation/aeronautics industry comes to mind.
Innovation in terms of new aircraft(single/twin-seater) is close to zero, if not zero. In Feb/Mar of this year, I visited an aeronautics institute and spent 1/2 a day talking to an aeronautics professor about pilot training and aviation industry.

If you think this is BS, give me a call and I will tell you the professor's name and phone number. It would probably take him 15 minutes to an hour to explain to you.

--John

 

[joab]

Justme
To a point I agree with you, but I have gotten way past that point

When the cost of defending yourself is more than the cost of paying off a frivolous lawsuit you get a group of people who feel run over by the system and will now resort to the more primitive methods you speak of.

A black humored friend once offered me some tongue in cheek (I think) advice

Dead men don't sue

 

[theinvisibleheart]

joab, sounds like it was not a desired feature

Do you know how much a transfer bar cost
Consumer level about $10

When FA started production of this gun in 83 it was a part that they chose to leave out not one that they would have had to add

joab, it sounds like it was not a desired feature by majority of FA's targeted market segment. Hunters I knew who carried SAA type guns knew if their guns had transfer bar safety or not, and carried it accordingly. It didn't bother them that their guns didn't have transfer bar safety or that as a result of it, they had to carry 1 round less.

--John

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Justme

Conflicts happen. Litigation is a civilized response to conflict. If litigation became less available then many people may resort to more expensive and/or violent methods of redress.

The fact that an average american feels comfortable suing cops, large business, medical professionals and their own bosses is a very good thing. More postal employees need to get their day in court and maybe they wouldn't go insane?

Much better to pay lawyers and judges in civil actions than criminal actions where jails and cops are involved.

yes and no. Right now, litigation is treated as a lottery in many cases because there is no cap on emotional suffering and losing party does not need to pay the cost of litigation.

John Edwards made millions suing doctors when babies were born with brain defects and blamed it on doctors for not delivering the babies by Caesarian section (C-section). Now, C-sections have increased greatly (unnecessarily so), but studies show no link b/w birth defects and C-section.

Here is an article by Thomas Sowell about this:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell070904.asp

--John

Edwards' specialty was suing when babies were born with brain defects, which he — like other lawyers cashing in on junk science and gullible juries — blamed on the failure of doctors to have had those babies delivered by Caesarian section.

Since then, Caesarian operations have increased greatly, but without reducing those birth defects that Edwards and others had blamed on a lack of Caesarian deliveries. Studies validated by leading medical authorities, here and overseas, have found no such link between birth defects and a lack of Caesarian births.

 

[threegun]

For 130 plus years people have been carrying the SAA and copies of it. Hundreds of thousands of copies have been produced over those years. If the design was flawed as you insist then it would have been scrapped decades ago.

This point that you keep making about the gun being designed with 6 and not 5 chambers is ridiculous. It can hold and fire 6 shots without problem. It is perfectly fine to load six rounds into the gun and fire them. When it was discovered that pulling the hammer back a bit and releasing it or dropping the gun onto the hammer could fire the gun accidentally the practice of keeping an empty round under the hammer was born.

Just because the gun can fire if manipulated or dropped in a certain way doesn't constitute a flaw in design.

BTW nobody is running from you. You are giving yourself way to much credit. I just rebutted your 6 vs 5 shot claim as the gun is perfectly capable of holding and firing 6 shots. The rest is just your opinion. 130 years of fine service to its owners proves the design good enough to satisfy generations but you say its flawed.

 

[Fremmer]

I guess I should read all of the preceeding pages before I comment.
Oh well, here goes:

Sounds like Freedom Arms knew or should have known that a consumer would be likely to load 6 rounds into a 6-round cylinder. Or that Freedom Arms manufactured a revolver that discharged a round even if the hammer is not fully pulled back and/or the trigger is not pulled.

Or something like that.

 

[Wildalaska]

In Feb/Mar of this year, I visited an aeronautics institute and spent 1/2 a day talking to an aeronautics professor about pilot training and aviation industry.

Not doubting you John, doubting him

WildilikesowellbutheisbiasedAlaska

 

[theinvisibleheart]

WA, no problem

Quote:
In Feb/Mar of this year, I visited an aeronautics institute and spent 1/2 a day talking to an aeronautics professor about pilot training and aviation industry.

Not doubting you John, doubting him

no problem and thanks! But here is one simple way to think about it: malpractice insurance for OBGYN specialists is astronomical. For state w/o cap compared to state with cap (e.g. Florida), all things considered, it's more attractive for OBGYN specialists and more OBGYN doctors will probably consider practicing there.

There is marginal cost vs. total cost of developing a product. Product liability falls in the total cost category.

If I started a small company with very limited amount of capital, I may not have the resources (capital) to hire an attorney and defend myself in the court even though I may have a brilliant idea for Rx medication or a 2-set airplane. I also have a family to support and staff to pay.

So my brilliant idea for new Rx medication or a 2-set airplane that can revolutionize the industry gets canned.

BTW, my thinking is not my own. It comes from reading other people's work, such as those at Hoover Institute (www.hoover.org) and Cato Institue (www.cato.org).

--John

PS
btw, most innovations come from small firms outside the established industry leaders. Industry leaders (established corporations) usually profit from established way of doing things. Small firms usu. have very limited amount of capital. Cost of litigation makes it more difficult for them.

Without threat of litigation, we would have had much more product variety.

 

[DonR101395]

Don
You again are arguing from emotion and making yourself look dumb

No the only thing I've done is answer your question with my opinion. You've concluded that you are the expert in the matter. I've simply concluded that you're pompous.

The definition of extraordinary is verifiable and no where have I even implied that I am ignorant of the carry method of the old SAA I even outlined how it is done

The definition of pompous is verifiable also.

I find it funny that instead of actually answering the question you avoid it and claim to answer it

Saying that it is not true when it is known accepted practice is kinda dumb dont ya think

Post #87

First you say that there is no extraordinary precaution necessary then you try to imply that I am ignorant of that practice even though I have repeatedly asked why that practice is necessary if the gun is safe to carry as designed.
And then you wonder why I question your reasoning ability.

The accepted practice of carrying 5 rounds has been in use for over 100 years. There is a difference between better design and flawed design.

What 1911 question am I avoiding?
What questions have I avoided? You say "every single one" that would imply that many have been asked that I have failed to answer

You stated that the 1911 is safe the way it was designed. I asked if that is true why do they now have a firing pin block?

I have only asked one and that has not yet been answered, I wonder why that is

No, it hasn't been answered in the way your pompous egomaniac personality prefers.

Stop claiming you answered it and answer it
Why must extra ordinary precautions be taken to mitigate the design flaw of the FA and SAA
If you don't like the word extraordinary put a more simplistic word in there, It won't change the fact that a precaution beyond what the gun was designed for has to be taken to make the gun safe.

Carry anyway you like. I'll stick with 5 loaded hammer on an empty chamber.

The gun was designed to carry five rounds not four
This cannot be safely done due to the design of the gun, do you deny this?

You're assuming all holes must be filled. If the maker of the gun makes 5 holes in the cylinder and tells you to only put 4 rounds in the gun and leave the hammer on an empty chamber, it's working exactly as they designed it.

If the gun cannot be safely carried with the intended five rounds then the extraordinary (sorry guys I just don't know a dumb down word to use instead,) precaution of loading in a pattern that leaves the round under the chamber must be taken to allow the safe handling of the gun even while following the four rules.

See above referencing 5 rounds. Since no matter how you load it you should be following the four rules so all I can say about this is you should rethink you're handling practices if you think you don't need to follow the four rules just because you have a hammer block.

That by definition is extraordinary. I'm sorry to be blunt guys but if you are too dumb to get that by now then you are to dumb to participate in this adult discussion

Sorry to be blunt but the entire your entire post is the definition of pompous. I thought at first you were having a bad day, but as I read other threads with your drivel in them I realized you were just too pompous to realize your not an authority anywhere but in your mind.

Joab you're now on ignore.

 

[Wildalaska]

But here is one simple way to think about it: malpractice insurance for OBGYN specialists is astronomical. For state w/o cap compared to state with cap (e.g. Florida), all things considered, it's more attractive for OBGYN specialists and more OBGYN doctors will probably consider practicing there.

Now is that the fault of the tort system, or of incompetant docs?

WbillsbillsbillsA

 

[threegun]

DonR, Great post.

WA,

Now is that the fault of the tort system, or of incompetent docs?

Both. Problem is those that aren't due to incompetence. Same with any frivolous lawsuit a few get money (lawyers and fake victims) and a great many get hosed (us poor slobs that pay higher prices as a result).

 

[joab]

joab, it sounds like it was not a desired feature by majority of FA's targeted market segment. Hunters I knew who carried SAA type guns knew if their guns had transfer bar safety or not, and carried it accordingly.

I don't kow that the gun was ever initially offered with the transfer bar so there would be no way of knowing if was desired by their customer base or not.
This was a management decision that was deemed an inappropriate decision by the jury

Most of gun owners I know would have a full working knowledge of how their guns work also, but apparently this guy did not run in our circles.
The company produced a gun that they sold to the general public, not just uor friends

The flaw was known and easily correctable this cost them $300000

The jury also agreed with us that a person owning and using a firearm should be aware of how to safely operate that gun
I also believe that that is why the original amount was so much lower than asked for. Perhaps they weren't familiar with comparative negligence laws of their state.
Or maybe they just agreed with me also in that the manufacturer has the responsibility to make the safest product possible
Perhaps the jury was aware of Merkerson vs Maas and applied that standard along with a signing 50% of the blame to the guy with the limp

 

[joab]

No the only thing I've done is answer your question with my opinion. You've concluded that you are the expert in the matter. I've simply concluded that you're pompous.

The definition of pompous is verifiable also.

Is that really necessary
You have already proven your lack of ability when it come to debate
You have answered no question, you have simply tried to divert from a straight forward simple question because you lack the integrity to admit that you are wrong and are not knowledgeable in the subject being discussed

Post 87

No, the gun isn't flawed. If loaded with an empty chamber under the hammer it will not just go off(per the manufacturer's instructions)

I did not ask for you to outline the flaw, but by doing so you admit that it is there
The manufacturers instructions on how to circumvent the flaw do not correct the flaw
That is also the comment where you exposed your flawed knowledge of the subject at hand

If the hammer was pulled back and the trigger pulled it will go off the same as any other revolver. Does that make all revolvers inherently flawed designs? Transfer bar or not, if you cock it and pull the trigger it goes bang.

The point is that the FA and SAA will go off if the hammer is not pulled back and the trigger pulled.
That is the flaw that we are talking about.

The accepted practice of carrying 5 rounds has been in use for over 100 years. There is a difference between better design and flawed design.

The accepted practice of circumventing a flaw does not lessen the flaw. many time a better design is implemented because the old design was flawed, as is the case with the transfer bar
And sometimes the better design exposes an inherent flaw in the old design

You stated that the 1911 is safe the way it was designed. I asked if that is true why do they now have a firing pin block?

Yes it is as according to the way it was designed
And yes I gave you a simple and direct answer to that question
Post 129

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

Notice the part about using the gun as it was designed, as in according to design parameters not following the suggestion by the company as to how to cover up their faulty design. Also notice where I said if that were true, I didn't want to point out to you that not all 199 have firing pin safeties, you got your feeling hurt when I pointed out your other mistake

No, it hasn't been answered in the way your pompous egomaniac personality prefers.

More ad hominems but still no direct answer to a simple question, you know those are against the rules right?

Carry anyway you like. I'll stick with 5 loaded hammer on an empty chamber.

And why would you need to take that extraordinary precaution if the gun was safe to carry as designed?

You're assuming all holes must be filled. If the maker of the gun makes 5 holes in the cylinder and tells you to only put 4 rounds in the gun and leave the hammer on an empty chamber, it's working exactly as they designed it.

No you are helping them to cover up the known flaw in their gun, The gun was designed to hold five rounds, to argue otherwise is disengenuous and absurd, in other words your style

See above referencing 5 rounds. Since no matter how you load it you should be following the four rules so all I can say about this is you should rethink you're handling practices if you think you don't need to follow the four rules just because you have a hammer block.

Again with the simplistic twisty attempts where have I said that is unnecessary to follow the four rules with ahammer block.
Is carrying in a holster a violation of the four rules, that's where the gun was when it blew the guys leg off. If it is then who will be the first to implement the class action lawsuit against Galco and Bianchi?

Sorry to be blunt but the entire your entire post is the definition of pompous. I thought at first you were having a bad day, but as I read other threads with your drivel in them I realized you were just too pompous to realize your not an authority anywhere but in your mind.

What did you do copy and paste this ad hominem, you've already told me this very same thing last time you made an ass of yourself by acting like a spoiled screaming baby

Joab you're now on ignore.

And you have told me that twice already


Now that one of the children have gone to their room can we continue with the adult portion of the discussion

If you disagree with my points then by all means show me where I'm wrong, don't just scream that I'm a dookie head and throw a temper tentrum
I actually do like to be PROVEN wroing

 

[Wildalaska]

Same with any frivolous lawsuit a few get money (lawyers and fake victims) and a great many get hosed (us poor slobs that pay higher prices as a result).

Of all the civil suits pending in all 50 staes and the fed system, hwo many do you think are frivolous within the legal meaning of the term?



WildtrythatoneAlaska

 

[Justme]

Again, by definition, nobody ever wins a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[wmeSha]

Since we are arguing about the definition of extraordinary, as a relative gun non-expert I have to say I've known not to carry an "old style" revolver on a loaded chamber. I'm sure I've known this since I was 15 years old even though no one I knew owned a revolver. I myself didn't shoot a revolver until I was 30 years old.

I am sensible enough to read the directions on products I purchase and would be doubly sure to read the directions on a firearm since they are lethal weapons. Given the small amount of the judgment, I think the jury made it clear that the handling directions of the gun were not extraordinary (but clearly, the safety of the gun could be improved).

 

[joab]

I think the jury made it clear that the handling directions of the gun were not extraordinary (but clearly, the safety of the gun could be improved).

I think they made it clear that they were and that it should

Since we are arguing about the definition of extraordinary, as a relative gun non-expert I have to say I've known not to carry an "old style" revolver on a loaded chamber. I'm sure I've known this since I was 15 years old even though no one I knew owned a revolver. I myself didn't shoot a revolver until I was 30 years old.

But I have heard many times, on this very board, that that is no longer necessary with a modern designed revolver. The FA is certainly a modern design, being born in 1983
While the majority of us are non experts while here on the board we are usually more gun savvy than those we meet in real life and many do consider us experts by comparison

That this guy does not rise to the same level of competence does not make him a complete idiot

He may have just got in over his head, like we all do from time to time
That certainly is not the fault of the company but they are liable for making a product that does not live up to the safety expectations and capabilities of a modem designed firearm

All in all a good decision by the jury

Thee is no argument over the definition of extraordinary
It means beyond what is ordinary, that is verifiable
The precautions necessary to make the gun safe are beyond what would be ordinarily expected of a gun designed to carry five rounds

 

[Wildalaska]

Welcome to the Pompous Lords club

I want to join. I work hard at my pomposity and it gets no recognition!

WildandpedantictooAlaska