Pure Idiocy - The American Tort System

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
KH,
I've already addressed this point several times. In my mind, negligence requires what I've already stated above, and I can't see any negligence on the part of the gun manufacturer.

This is not how it is defined, David. Stop trying to redefine words to suit yourself.

Law: Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=negligence

Again, better idiot proofing simply leads to better idiots. And as I pointed out above, EVEN IF the gun was designed to be loaded/unloaded with the safety on or off, many people (I'd suspect even many people I'm talking to now) would still want to hold the gun manufacturer liable, for the ultimate reason that they simply don't like guns.

My problem is not that this was a gun. Obviously if the law allows the sale of guns then I can find a way to shoot somebody accidentally with one of them. The problem is that this gun was badly designed. It forced the user (in this case an idiot) to do something dangerous (like take off the safety) in order to accomplish something routine (like unload the gun). Most guns, AFAIK don't force you to do that. This makes the designer negligent since most other gun manufacturers have obviously decided that it would be idiotic to design a gun in that way.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Tub,



By the way, this brings up another interesting point. You get what you pay for - if you buy a cheap TV, don't be surprised when it breaks down next year, probably right after the warranty expires. Is the manufacturer obligated to repair/replace your TV? Of course not - you paid for a cheap TV and that's exactly what you got.

But a TV breaking down doesn't kill me.

OK, and my point is that, in this case, they were wrong. The root problem was the idiocy of the babysitter, not the design of the gun.

The root problem was found 55% liable, the jury agrees with you.

ACK!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd

KH,



You ARE invoking the "spirit of the law" argument, because you are asserting that even though the law doesn't SPECIFICALLY cover every incident, it IMPLIES "reasonable precautions", which, in many cases remain unstated. That is a classic "Spirit of the law"-type argument.

IT DOESN'T IMPLY "REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS" AS THE STANDARD; IT STATES "REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS" AS THE STANDARD. JESUS CHRIST. IT'S A CATCHALL FOR A REASON.

OK, and my point is that, in this case, they were wrong. The root problem was the idiocy of the babysitter, not the design of the gun.

There were three root causes: the parents leving a loaded handgun in the vicinity of an idiot and their child; the idiot picking up the handgun; and the flawed design of the handgun. Blame is assigned to all three, as well it should be.

Exactly, just like each industry cannot reasonable perfect each product to rule out the possibility of an idiot hurting themselves or another. Sure, the product can't just explode on its own, but that simply is not what happened in this case.

Professionals in each industry can be reasonably expected to hold themselves to a higher standard than the law can be bothered to. If they don't then there are civil consequences.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Tub,

So?

Nothing to do with the judgment but proof he is slime:

After meeting with his bankruptcy lawyers, Jennings paid cash for a house and a hangar in Florida, where state law forbids the seizure of a person's house to pay a civil penalty, Thames said. Jennings also bought a $500,000 annuity that is also exempt from creditors, Thames said.

"I believe Mr. Jennings is a student of the game," Thames said. "He had a tremendous amount of pre-bankruptcy planning that we're trying to undo. He's left a trail. We're pursuing every avenue."

But Ned Nashban, a Boca Raton attorney representing Jennings and his companies in their bankruptcy case, denied any wrongdoing Tuesday and said any delay was due to the usual protracted nature of the courts.

"I know of no nefarious intent," Nashban said. "We have a number of creditors to deal with. Bryco is liquidating its assets to pay its creditors. We would like to resolve everything quicker."

At a hearing in Jacksonville next week, Jennings hopes to sell all of Bryco's assets to his current plant manager, Paul Jimenez, who plans to operate at the same location, according to Ruggieri.

If the sale to Jimenez is approved, Jennings is expected to ask that the assets of his distributor be sold to an investment group run by his second ex- wife, meaning that the same people would be back selling more guns, Ruggieri said.



ACK!

[Jaguar]

Anyone who picks up a loaded gun, removes the safety, points it at someone, tries to unload it while putting one finger on the trigger, and accidentally shoots someone deserves Man-2 at least.

[David Floyd]

This is not how it is defined, David.

Of course not. The anti-personal responsibility crowd has good lobbyists.

Smartass answers aside, I'm not really debating the fact that manufacturers can be held liable for defective products, or products that are unsafe as a result of a defect. My point is simply that the gun, in this case, was neither defective or inherently unsafe.

It forced the user (in this case an idiot) to do something dangerous (like take off the safety) in order to accomplish something routine (like unload the gun).

Taking off the safety is not dangerous. Pointing the gun at someone IS dangerous.

It is a basic principle of gun handling that you ALWAYS treat a gun as if it were loaded, with the safety off. The reason for that principle is simple: If you point the gun away from people and keep your finger off the trigger, it can't go off. If you violate the basic, fundamental principle, it simply isn't the fault of the gun, or the design of the gun, or the manufacturer of the gun. It's YOUR fault. The gun was designed with the assumption of safe use, and the performance of the gun was consistent with that design assumption. Someone got shot, but not because of the design of the gun, which performed EXACTLY to specs. It didn't blow up when it was fired, and it didn't fire itself, or anything of the sort. The safety was off - and it's entirely possible that the safety was already off when the babysitter got to the gun. The article doesn't say one way or the other, but my assumption would be that if the babysitter didn't know enough about guns to point it away from the child, then he probably didn't know enough to take the safety off, either.

[Tuberski]

The part of this case I severly disagree with is that three distributors of the gun were found 35% liable.

That's the outrage. They simply sold the damn thing, yet they are more liable than the manufacturer?

ACK!

[KrazyHorse]

I agree.

I just think that there should be civil repercussions for the company that made it easier for the person to be an idiot than they should have.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Anyone who picks up a loaded gun, removes the safety, points it at someone, tries to unload it while putting one finger on the trigger, and accidentally shoots someone deserves Man-2 at least.

Except the person shot didn't die......

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I agree.

I just think that there should be civil repercussions for the company that made it easier for the person to be an idiot than they should have.

With who exactly?

ACK!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Taking off the safety is not dangerous. Pointing the gun at someone IS dangerous.

Taking off the safety is ****ing dangerous. Just like unclipping while walking steel is dangerous. And if you stumble either time the consequences could be deasdly. Saying it isn't dangerous is farcical.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Tuberski


With who exactly?

ACK!

Jag

[David Floyd]

KH,

IT DOESN'T IMPLY "REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS" AS THE STANDARD; IT STATES "REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS" AS THE STANDARD. JESUS CHRIST. IT'S A CATCHALL FOR A REASON.

But by not specificying "reasonable precautions", you are forced to infer (ie, guess at) what sort of reasonable precautions the law refers to. Does it mean EVERY forseeable issue, regardless of cost? I certainly hope not. Does it mean to make a product that is impossible to hurt yourself with? That is an unreasonable expectation.

There were three root causes: the parents leving a loaded handgun in the vicinity of an idiot and their child; the idiot picking up the handgun; and the flawed design of the handgun. Blame is assigned to all three, as well it should be.

I'll point out again that it seems quite reasonable to assume the safety was off when the babysitter picked up the gun in the first place, which would even further tell me that the manufacturer bears no liability for what happened.

Professionals in each industry can be reasonably expected to hold themselves to a higher standard than the law can be bothered to.

And then we're back to your guessing game from before. It's really not fair. If you have to pass a law, for God's sake be specific.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Jag

Except, again, the person didn't die, so Man-2 is impossible.

ACK!

[David Floyd]

Taking off the safety is ****ing dangerous.

Not if you don't point the gun at someone and pull the trigger, which isn't a problem unless you're a)defending yourself, or b)violating a fundamental rule of gun safety.