Revolver cylinder gap gas severs thumb, now shooter sues S&W

When Bob Munden, the exhibition shooter and quick draw artist, puts on his shows he wears a shirt with a patch of leather sewn onto the shirt in the area directly above his holster. He draws and fires from the hip. The leather patch prevents the gasses from the BC gap from burning a hole in his shirts.

A link was posted above to one of several You Tube videos floating around the tube o sphere where folks cut hot dogs and sausages and such by holding them up next to the gun and letting the gasses from the gap burn and cut them.

tipoc

Post #69 Pics

Oh, nice. And I just had lunch.

Hey, nice to see somebody had the guts to put the "real thing" in the post AND was kind enough to mark it as graphic. Fair warning, just like the firearm manufacturer.

I suppose now everyone who cut themselves with anything from a grapefruit spoon to a chainsaw will want to line up to sue, too.

Who is it on TV that said it - is it Red Green - "Life is dangerous."

some people should stick to water guns

SW will probably try to settle quitely out of court.

If they do go to trial, the dude might lose if the jury is convinced he is stupid. Might get a gun friendly crowd in his area.

However, SW might give him a buck or two after to prevent appeals and yapping. Ruger has done that even when they win in similar stupid user cases.

BTW, I was in Cabelas and some poor schmuck was going to bear country wanted a handgun and the clerk was trying to sell him some gigantic 460 that looked like a Buck Rogers gizmo with fins on it. The dude had never shot a gun. The clerk told him that he owned one but had never used it to 'harvest' game yet but it was dead accurate a distance (macho talk for poor dude). Maybe the bear will just stop to eat his thumb when it flies off.

Maybe the bear will just stop to eat his thumb when it flies off.

Click to expand...

Gem, now that is gem!

Lawsuits like this remind me why Shakespeare was right. Any lawyer willing to take a case like this should be dis-barred on the spot. But until we get judges with the cojones to throw this kind of idiocy out, common sense is DOOMED.

This moronic plaintiff went out and bought the latest gee-whiz contraption he could find, failed to read the instruction manual, and did something even dumber than that. He bought the largest deadly weapon he could lift, held it wrong, and lost the tip of his thumb. If he'd done the same thing with a chainsaw, would he be suing?

Remember the guy who shot himself six times in the head with a nailgun, and lived? Nearly everyone's seen that X-ray by now. I wonder if he sued the nailgun maker, for manufacturing something so dangerous?

It's really too bad this cretin didn't put his face next to his $1800 toy, to hear what it sounded like up close.

Maybe I should sue Ford for making that car that ran over me when I was a kid, or Schwinn for making the bike I was on. Or the paving contractor for making the road we were on. Or......

You get the idea.

PJ

Such vitriol and outright hatred of a guy just because he's ignorant of a revolver's functioning? I must admit that's rather confusing.

It's really too bad this cretin didn't put his face next to his $1800 toy, to hear what it sounded like up close

Click to expand...

So you're saying he deserves to DIE just because he's ignorant of the cylinder gap blast and bought a highly-marketed gun to hunt with? Really? Are you ya know, INSANE? Not only is that extraordinarily un-highroad, it just makes no sense. So the guy is ignorant - he deserves to die? Do you have any idea how dumb-redneck that sounds? Get a grip.

Lawsuits like this remind me why Shakespeare was right. Any lawyer willing to take a case like this should be dis-barred on the spot.

Click to expand...

Now that's funny too - the lawyers should be disbarred for taking a case which the LAW specifically allows them to pursue on behalf of their client? The law, after all, in the vast majority of states, says that there is strict liability for "unreasonably dangerous" products. Blame the state of the LAW, not the litigants, and espec. not the lawyers who simply pursue what the law allows them too. Blame YOURSELF for voting the politicians into place which MADE the LAW. The lawyers are just doing their job, pursing claims which the law allows them to pursue. If it was or is non-meritorious, it will be thrown out of court forthwith. Obviously it's arguable on the current status of the LAW, so that's why the suit was brought. It's for the jury to decide, unless it settles, as to what is and what is not "unreasonably dangerous" , based on all the facts and circumstances, including most notably, the warnings in the manual.

Someone asked if S&W can waive their right to a jury and let the judge try the facts - they answer is yes they can but it won't matter because rest assured that Plaintiff will not waive that right to a jury trial, and both sides have to waive for that to happen, unless the law specifically prescribes this type of case to be heard by the judge, which it doesn't.

This case, like many others will come down to what can/should an individual/company reasonably do to prevent their products from causing injury. We can all think of hundreds of situations in every day life where a real chance of injury exists if proper care isn't taken. Firearms are potentially dangerous and if care isn't taken, accidents happen. Think about all of the accidental discharges that occur each year and the injuries that result from them. How many of those end up in court? Think of all the fingers and thumbs removed by table saws. Table saws have provisions in place to REDUCE the chance of injury but those measures can be bypassed. Is the company now liable because their saw still works after the end user has removed the blade guard? Is a car manufacturer liable because an individual crashed into a tree driving 100 mph. Some might argue that the car shouldn't be able to go 100 mph and therefore the manufacturer is responsible. Sadly, in this country there's no reason not to sue since the plaintiff has nothing to lose. In the UK, if you lose a lawsuit, the judge/jury can order you to pay the defendant the amount you were suing for. That would go a long way to dissuade frivolous lawsuits.

A couple of years ago my brother was pruning a tree in his garden and fell off a step ladder he was using. He managed to fall onto the step ladder and broke three of his ribs. The doctor told him that he was lucky that his ladder was made in China because it buckled thereby reducing his injuries. According to the doctor, if it hadn't buckled the fall would have killed him. Ladders come with all kinds of warning signs intended to reduce injuries but people get killed every year using them. My brother was an idiot and the same can be said of the man who lost the tip of his thumb. The difference is, my brother didn't try to blame his ignorance or stupidity on someone else.

Just to close this out and because a web search may lead anyone inquiring to this web page.

Lawsuit withdrawn by plaintiff. Pertinent info follows:

Judge Harry Barnes ruled that the jury would not have the option of assessing punitive damages against S&W, and that if the Browns lost they could wind up paying S&W's legal fees, the suit was dropped.
Mr. Brown admits he hadn't read the owners manual which warned against this hazard in two different places, saying while he had shot the gun before, he had used a table to support the heavy gun from a resting position.

While the manual specifically warned that escaping gas could cause "Severe bodily injury" but not against amputation, Brown's attorney Cliff Gibson from Monticello, AR, said that this was inadequate, and that warnings should have been more specific and displayed prominently on the gun itself.

Thanks for the update.

I'll close this thread now. Since it's 7 years and 6 pages long now, any further discussion is highly likely to simply be a rehash.