Interesting Case


PDA






Sport45
April 10, 2006, 12:59 PM
Forgive me if this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in a search. While googling "beretta chamber support" before helping a friend reload for his Beretta .40 S&W I came across this article.

Endresen v. Beretta USA Corporation (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/endresen_v_beretta_usa.txt). Seems some yahoo was out riding around one night (that's right, after dark) and decided to shoot at a rabbit that crossed in front of his truck. He missed the rabbit and decided to shoot at a fence post. After 10 or so shots of the remanufactured ammunition he was using a case head failed and he wound up with a piece of metal in his eye. Looks like he was awarded over $190,000.

So, if I understand correctly he:

1. Hunted rabbits at night off of public roads. (Illegal, I think).
2. Destroys/damages private property, the fencepost. (I believe also illegal)
3. Discharges a firearm into the night. (Downright idiotic, if you ask me, maybe illegal as well)
4. Doesn't wear proper eye protection when shooting, as is probably called for in the pistol's manual. (Very careless)

and still wins the lawsuit!

Is there any justice?

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Case" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Henry Bowman
April 10, 2006, 06:32 PM
It was a bench trial. The blame lies on the judge. The court of appeals had little ability to reverse on the finding of liability.

Bad decision.:barf: I cannot defend it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Case" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!