A bit of judicial good news!

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tory

member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
911
~~~~~ GUN LIABILITY ~~~~~

BB GUN MANUFACTURER AND SUPPLIER HAD NO DUTY TO WARN MOTHER WHO PURCHASED GUN FOR CHILD OF OPEN AND OBVIOUS DANGER OF GUN

In Abney v. Crosman Corp., the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that a BB gun manufacturer and supplier did not have the duty to warn a mother who purchased a BB gun for her seven-year-old son of the capacity [sic] of the gun to kill a person, in an action brought by the executrix of a child who was shot and killed when the son discharged the gun. The dangerous propensity of the gun was open and obvious, despite the mother's claim that she did not know that the gun had the capacity [sic] to kill a person.

The son and two of his siblings all testified that their mother had told them that the gun could kill someone, and therefore the son had subjective knowledge of the gun's dangerous propensities.

A fine grasp of the obvious! ;)
 
In these litigious times, it's common sense that is not practiced. More like "if they have money, lets sue them".

Everyone is looking to making a quick buck.
 
The presiding justice:
master_obvious.jpg
 
The dangerous propensity of the gun was open and obvious, despite the mother's claim that she did not know that the gun had the capacity [sic] to kill a person.
Click to expand...

The "mother" who didn't teach her children anything about safety and respect for others, and clearly didn't supervise them, is the one at fault.

We have far, far too many assault lawyers running around on the loose.
 
Common sense. And in Alabama yet. Will wonders never cease. Maybe this will prove catching.
 
uhh, I didn't know BB guns could kill.

I've shot lots of people, and been shot lots of times with BBs while I was growing up. All the kids I knew shot each other with BB guns. They rarely broke the skin. Now that I'm grown of course, I think shooting people with BBs pretty stupid. I've heard stories about people losing eyes; never known anyone personally though.


even so... where could you get shot by a BB that would be fatal? even to a child? I'd think even a shot to the neck wouldn't do it.


maybe the muzzle was touching the kid and the compressed air did more damage than the bb?

maybe i'm missing something

edit: are they saying "we don't have to warn you that it can kill; it's enough to warn you that it could cause serious injury" ? i.e. they're not saying "everybody knows they can kill"
 
taliv,

I don't know how old you are but if you are over 30 or 40, then the BB guns you played with are nothing compared to what you can put your hands on today. Some of those guns are pushing 1000FPS, which is pretty substancial even if the projectile is small.
 
interesting. (i'm between those numbers)

maybe i should get a new bb gun :)

i guess i assumed guns were getting cheaper and crappier and made in chinaier
 
That seems to be the problem. If a child has never fired any projectile weapon before, get him one of those Red Ryder BB guns that couldn't put a BB through paper. They are good enough to play with, but not very dangerous unless hitting someone in the eye or something. I had a single pump BB pistol also that was pump and not CO2. It was pretty harmless. I certainly would not buy a kid a 1000 ft/s BB gun good for killing small game. That is pretty foolish.

By the way, how old was this kid? Reading the stuff above, I am picturing an 8 year old or something, but the way some articles are done, he could've been 15.
 
I grew up with the Daisy red Ryder, killed birds and gophers with it, and my friends and I shot each other up quite regularly. They Stung!!!
Just recently, I bought one exactly like the one I grew up with -- except for having a synthetic stock instead of wood, of course.
To Me, That's A BB GUN. (Needless to say, both were exactly what was described in "Christmas Story".)

On the other hand, the older kids often had "AIR RIFLES." aka "Pellet Guns".
Those were known to be lethal, depending on how hard you pumped them up.
Typically, they were fed a .22 pellet. I don't recall -- there may have been some .17 pellets.
The only difference between them and a .22 rifle was the lack of gunpowder and the RANGE you could expect to get from them.

If somebody is selling AIR RIFLES and calling them BB GUNS, I think that judge was nuts. The mother should have been warned of the difference.

Or did the line blur when I wasn't looking??????

Fud.
 
The "Red Ryder" bb gun isn't particularly powerful, the BB is almost slow enough to see when shooting.

Now, some of the multi-pump guns move the BB's/Pellets VERY FAST. I have a Red Ryder, and one of the Crossman multi-pump pistols (The Crossman sort of resembles the Rem XP-100 bolt-action target pistol)

My basement range has a big carboard box, stuffed with heavy brown crumpled "Craft Paper". The Red Ryder only goes into the box, but I can pump the Crossman enough to go through both sides of the box and paper.
 
That's okay, it'll get overturned in appellate court once it reaches some crazy-@ss fed level court anyway.
Click to expand...

Relatively speaking, very few cases go into the federal system from a state supreme court. I don't see where the plaintiff has a federal claim.

I'd like to know where the mother was when these kids were playing with the BB gun? After all, she knew it was dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top