Gun maker Kahr to pay record damage claim

bigfatdave said:

If someone bashes in a couple skulls with a particular brick, you don't blame the owner of the building that the brick was pried off of.

Click to expand...

This is a case of a company in the business of making bricks, being negligent both in the vetting of people who are provided with privileged access to the bricks and in the check for theft of bricks.

How about a re-phrase?
I will not be held responsible for the actions of a criminal who has victimized me.

Click to expand...

Again. That's not up to you. Such a determination is generally the province of a jury, not the defendant.

bigfatdave said:

Guns.
Are.
Not.
Dangerous.

I know the Brady campaign has been telling you that guns are special and unique, but they are just tools without motivation of their own.

Click to expand...

Yes.
They.
Are.

Guns are tools, but they are among the subset of tools whose purpose is to kill. Dance around it all you want, but that has always been the primary purpose of firearms from the time someone first discovered that putting a pebble on top of gunpowder in a tube was a really cool way to punch holes in things.

While guns have no volition, they are dangerous because the potential for their misuse, even if it is accidental, is so high. Else, why would we, as proponents of gun ownership and self-defense, emphasize proper training and safe handling practices so strongly? This is also the reason that, rightly or wrongly, we regulate their manufacture, distribution and possession.

No one is debating that the guns in the Kahr factory were simply there, presenting no threat to anyone. The danger came when Kahr failed to exercise proper control of inventory to prevent theft; failed to identify an employee who had access to the guns as a person with a criminal record (and a drug habit) and failed to notify proper authorities when a theft occurred. This is negligence.

Let's sum it up:

1. Kahr hired a doper with a criminal record who traded guns without serial numbers for dope.

2. At least one of those guns was used in a murder.

3. A four old kid found the murder gun.

4. Kahr had no security in place to prevent the theft of guns from its plant.

5. Kahr neglected to report guns missing from 15 or 16 shipments. In some cases entire shipments never reached their destination. Where are those guns now?

Yep, its the fault of the anti-gunners.

This is analogous to Acme Powder Co. not securing its inventory of dynamite, failing to report lost or stolen shipments, hiring unvetted people with criminal records to walk out of the plant with lunchboxes of Tovex to trade for crack and the company not reporting the missing inventory until the regulatory agaency investigated a seperate complaint.

It has nothing to do with lawful commerce in stuff that can be used/misused, but everything to do with careless commerce.

Guns are not tools. The Constitution does not protect your right to have a hammer or saw.

It protects guns for their use as weapons and instruments of lethal force.

Trying to say they are not weapons is to actually kiss the Brady Butt. Oh, please don't take away my tool. It won't hurt anyone.

It's a stupid cliche that some progunners think will molify people on the fence. However, outside the choir, no one will buy that. You look silly to propose it.

Sorry. I disagree and stand by my previous statement.

Kahr is not responsible for the employee's unlawful actions, in my view. I don't really care what the law says. It's a moral debate for me, and I know that I'll stand on the opposite side of the line from the politicians, lobbyists, and legal system every time.

This is the first suit against a gun manufacture for damages resulting from the use of a gun where I agree the manufacturer is partly liable.

For those drawing analogies to a drunk stealing your car, this is nothing like that. This is more like you seeing a staggering neighbor who slurs his speech and loaning him your car.

The lack of serial number is also interesting. ATF regulates when a serial number must be affixed to the frame during the manufacturing process and I thought it was at a point before the gun could be assembled.

Kahr isn't strictly being held responsible for the actions of its employee. Kahr is being held responsible for its actions like hiring a worker with a criminal background and drug problem and failing to properly secure their inventory.

If it were a company that made botulitis toxin - one of the most deadly poisons on the planet and had no inventory control - that led to an employee walking out with a quart and pouring it into the neighborhood swimming pool - would you hold them responsible?

After all, don't we have the right to own biological weapons or is botox a medicine? Is the company responsible?

Or is it that it is a gun, which just a tool and not at weapon, that makes you sympathetic to Kahr?

Kahr isn't strictly being held responsible for the actions of its employee. Kahr is being held responsible for its actions like hiring a worker with a criminal background and drug problem and failing to properly secure their inventory.

Click to expand...

Actually, again, Kahr isn't being held responsible for its actions or the employee's actions. They are settling out of court to avoid further legal fees and the possibility of having to accept culpability for wrongdoing.

I'm actually amazed that dealing with a civil suit over this is the greatest of their concerns. I'm curious to find out what the ATF has had to say to them about all the thefts, losses, improper reporting, hiring errors, and so forth. The Brady Bunch filed this suit. I'm surprised the company hasn't been brought into court in a more "US vs. Kahr Arms" kind of way. That might make the $600,000 look like a GREAT deal, especially as the repurcussions might not just be fines, but jail time as well.

ATF regulates when a serial number must be affixed to the frame during the manufacturing process and I thought it was at a point before the gun could be assembled.

Click to expand...

Sounds right to me. However, the doper employee stole parts before the guns were assembled then put them together at home.

I think most people would agree that the gun maker should have reasonable security and hiring practices to keep unmarked inventory in particular from walking off to parts unknown.

Whether liability for that neglect should extend to a third party's criminal action (murder) is another matter. The civil justice system permits extension of liability in many such cases. But the wisdom and effectiveness of that doctrine is open to debate.

...before the gun could be assembled

Click to expand...

... then put them together at home

Click to expand...

And Khar settled out of court so they didn't have to pay a team of lawyers to pound away for months on the details of how grey is grey and whether or not the gun was a little too finished, or not quite finished enough to require serial numbers and a million other nits to pick which can go into determining liability.

If it was my company, I'd be thinking of the $600K as "go away" money so I could stop wasting my time with the Brady Bunch and focus my energies on dealing with impressing the BATFE with how much I'm working to make sure that nothing like any of these mistakes ever happens again.

(Also, to a certain very real degree, settlements like this may not be completely up to the company anyway. Their insurance carrier will pay the settlement. Part of the trade-off for having them cover that cost is that they get to handle the case -- with THEIR lawyers, not yours -- in whatever way they see fit. If their formulas tell them that settling is the cheapest route out of the mess, then they tell you -- "If you want us to pay, we settle NOW.")

How much actually money does Kahr fork over as compared to what the insurance company pays?

I assume their rates go up dramatically or they get dropped and need to find another carrier.

Their responsibility on a moral plane is a different issue than the pragmatics of financial sensibility.

I think that if you don't take reasonable precautions to prevent instruments of lethal force from taking a hike, you are not morally clean. They seem not to.

That the criminal was immoral doesn't void their responsibility.

It’s a liability to be successful in this country. If you’ve been successful in life by providing a good that consumers want you will likely be sued some day because your product was used by a criminal in some illegal capacity.

So they are saying if someone (employee) steals a car off a lot, and kills someone with it the people that own the lot are Liable???? I thought there was a federal law against just that..... And it is adding insult to injury!!

You can bash the country or its economic environment if you want, but let's not forget that (to quote one of the above posters), that likelihood of getting sued goes up when you:

1. Kahr hired a doper with a criminal record who traded guns without serial numbers for dope.

2. At least one of those guns was used in a murder.

3. A four old kid found the murder gun.

4. Kahr had no security in place to prevent the theft of guns from its plant.

5. Kahr neglected to report guns missing from 15 or 16 shipments. In some cases entire shipments never reached their destination. Where are those guns now?

Click to expand...

Yes, threats of lawsuits happen more frequently with successful companies because you always want to go after the "deep pockets", but let's not turn a blind eye to Kahr's (potential) actions here just because you like guns.

I love the statements in this thread about guns aren't dangerous, Kahr is only being picked on because of anti-gun sentiment, etc. Give me a break guys. Yes, firearms get a bad wrap from a lot of people, and yes, some politicians/organizations try to punish gun companies both directly and indirectly, but gun makers aren't infallible. If they mess up, they should be punished, and it doesn't matter how much we love the product.

And here, the dispute didn't even reach that point, because they (or rather their insurance provider) just paid a settlement fee to get the plaintiff here to go away. Heck, it was not even that high of a settlement fee at that, compared to what a team of litigators would cost them, not to mention the damages a jury could potentially hit them with if this case had gone to trial.

So if my neighbor with a drinking problem steals my car while it is warming up on a cold morning and then kills someone while driving drunk, I am liable? I think not.

Click to expand...

Depending on what state you live in you very might be at least partially liable.

It is illegal in most places to leave a running vehicle unattended.

If your neighbor does not have any recoverable assets you can bet YOU will be on the receiving end of any lawsuit, and then your insurance company will decide how much THEY want to spend fighting.

If an 8 year old gets in the car and causes a wreck you can COUNT on being liable.

I was going to say what brickeyee said *see above* but he beat me to it while reading thru this forum.

I will add that I have worked at several places that have tight security, including armed guards. Banks, check processing places, and a clothing co. I never got to leave the bank without a full patdown by armed guards including emptying of my pockets. The clothing co. was so worried about theft, I commonly wore just a wifebeater and torn jeans to work, so it was obvious I was not stealing anything. I've worked in high-dollar warehouses that required all parties to stay if an item is not accounted for, I signed away my right to argue during the hiring process. There is no excuse for missing parts.

Its negligent for a weapons mfg to NOT have similar exit security. If a person were to be caught trying to steal parts, charges could be pressed. The MFG would have ATF on THEIR side, instead of paying hush money to end a scandal.

Yes, guns are weapons, not tools. I'd let a criminal use a shovel, I would not let him use a shotgun.

Anyone who's had "Dave's Killer Bread" can see that people with a criminal history can still do good if they've indeed reformed.

Click to expand...

But they are going to be soooo liable if one of those employees beats a man to death with a stolen baguette.

As most who've read my posts are aware, I'm a retired cop (and somewhere to the right of Attilla the Hun most days). I'm all for giving a guy with a record a second chance and applaud any business or individual that has the courage to do so... That second chance does not involve working where there's lots of money, or guns, or similar type temptations. There's lots of other jobs (maybe even working for a gun manufacturer) that wouldn't involve the slightest access to the sensitive stuff. Any gun manufacturer that doesn't carefully screen their employees, maintain very strict inventory controls, and promptly report any losses, is just plain irresponsible and deserves whatever comes their way in court.

I'm sure when they settled that claim they dodged a bullet. I'll bet there will be addtional suits to follow if those missing weapons, that they didn't report, are found to have killed someone else.

This is not the case of an innocent business being ripped. Ask any attorney.