Bryco loses long running court case - does this set bad legal precedent for gun manf?

[usmarine0352_2005]

The gun supposedly fell on the floor and fired. The owner of the now defunct Bryco Arms. had a default judgement against him because he did not appear. Does this set bad legal percent for gun manufacturers?


Does that mean that if he had appeared he may not have had the $2.2 million judgement against him?





http://www.ajc.com/news/news/lawsuit-ends-in-9-million-award-for-fayette-woman-/nh9j8/

Lawsuit ends in $9 million award for Fayette woman for misfired gun

Posted: 5:19 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2014

A Fayette County woman has been awarded a total of $9 million because the “Saturday night special” she bought for protection ended up killing her 14-year-old brother when she dropped the .38 caliber handgun as she was putting it on the dining room table.

Hardware also sued the owner of the company that made the gun, now-defunct Bryco Arms. She won a $2.2 million default judgment against Bruce Jennings, the owner, because he did not appear at trial.

 

[dogtown tom]

usmarine0352_2005 The gun supposedly fell on the floor and fired. The owner of the now defunct Bryco Arms. had a default judgement against him because he did not appear. Does this set bad legal percent for gun manufacturers?

I think you mean "precedent".
And no, it doesn't.

Does that mean that if he had appeared he may not have had the $2.2 million judgement against him?

Seriously?
Have you ever watched Judge Judy or Peoples Court? heck, any TV show with a judge and lawyers?

If you had you would know that a plaintiff has to prove their case in court. If the defendant decides to skip court the plaintiff gets a default judgement.

Bryco apparently knew their gun was crap and figured it was less expensive to pay any judgement than fight it in court. Being that they are bankrupt it probably doesn't matter if the judgement was for $2.2 million or $87.39

 

[danez71]

Bryco apparently knew their gun was crap......

Not necessarily.

......and figured it was less expensive to pay any judgement than fight it in court.

People make that decision for as variety of reasons; not just because they know they are guilty.



A real lawyer could give a better answer than I but I would guess that a 'no show' is like pleading "no contest" but also carries the risk of P-ing off the judge.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

I meant precedent. Dang autocorrect!

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

No, no. Pleading 'no contest' can only be done if you show up. Failing to show is a horrible error of either commission or omission and no doubt contributed to the additional judgement. I can't believe any attorney would have advised this. I'm surprised it was only $2.2M and not treble damages just for grins. I'm not an attorney but as an 'expert' have been around the courts before and I've honestly never heard of a no-show in these circumstances. What, dog ate his homework? Sounds like this executive is a real sleaze.
Is this a precedent? Well, it ain't good but I doubt it will have much impact. That is, unless you own a firearms company that builds truly unsafe products. Has Remington had to pay out for any injuries or fatalities that may have been caused by the 700 trigger issue (I am actually unaware that there have been any fatalities or injuries)? I suspect Remington, unlike this company, when finding that there might be a safety issue with their product did the right thing.
B

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

One way to GUARANTEE a loss...

or at least lack of a win:

Don't show up to plead your case.

 

[tarosean]

Does this set bad legal percent for gun manufacturers?

No, the Lawful Commerce Act does not protect against product liability.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In general a loss at the trial court level does not create precedent.

 

[pockets]

If I recall correctly, this bit of news happened in 2007.

In May 2013, Bruce Lee Jennings was sentenced to 10 years + 1 month in prison for child porn.
Bryco Arms has been defunct since 2003. The shooting happened in 2000.
Old old old news.

.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Pockets: If I recall correctly, this bit of news happened in 2007.

In May 2013, Bruce Lee Jennings was sentenced to 10 years + 1 month in prison for child porn.
Bryco Arms has been defunct since 2003. The shooting happened in 2000.
Old old old news.

Did you see the date of the article?

Lawsuit ends in $9 million award for Fayette woman for misfired gun

Posted: 5:19 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2014 | Filed in: News

Well, if he is in jail for 10+ years that's a reason for him not to show up at trial and also not care about what he owes.

 

[pockets]

Yes, I saw the date....which is what makes this so odd.
A Google search brings up the same information from 2007. Perhaps it took 7 years to come up with a judgement amount? Heck, the shooting happened 14 years ago in 2000. It is simply odd.
I hope they are in no hurry to collect. I don't think Bruce has money left after the 2013 lawyer fees, court costs, etc from his child porn trial. How much does one earn in prison these days? Maybe they can collect in 10 years when he gets out. He'll be about 80 years old, broke, and living on social security checks.

The Jennings saga never dies.....it just goes on and on and on and on.....

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Yes, I saw the date....which is what makes this so odd.
A Google search brings up the same information from 2007. Perhaps it took 7 years to come up with a judgement amount? Heck, the shooting happened 14 years ago in 2000. It is simply odd.

Nothing odd. That was a different case. In the current case, the victim was killed. In the 2007 case, the victim was paralyzed.

 

[jmr40]

Build a defective product and you are responsible for the outcomes. The gun industry should not be exempt. This has nothing to do with gun control

 

[Ryanxia]

Build a defective product and you are responsible for the outcomes. The gun industry should not be exempt. This has nothing to do with gun control

He didn't say it had to do with gun control.

Any mechanical object is something that can and will fail at some point. Which is why you shouldn't point guns at others (I know it was dropped in this case).
I once had a 1911 that if you pulled the trigger with it cocked and locked the hammer would slip off the sear and rest only on the safety, then when you clicked the safety off the hammer would drop (on a live round when we found out). No one was hurt because it was pointed down range in a safe direction.

Parts fail. Lots of old guns have a chance to fire when dropped, doesn't mean it's the manufacturer's fault, if you dropped a loaded gun on the floor that's an accident and not using the product as intended, but that's just my opinion.

The way things are going, if I drop a sledgehammer on my foot I'll be able to sue the manufacturer because there should have been a safety of some sort.

 

[bikerdoc]

All the Bryco ,Jennlngs, Davis, Lorcin, Jimenez guns need to sleep with fishes.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

All the Bryco ,Jennlngs, Davis, Lorcin, Jimenez guns need to sleep with fishes.

Let's not forget the Ravens.

Anyone remember that gunshot in LA (near?) that had the Lorcin and Raven prices painted on the side in HUGE lettering. Cheap... Something like $79.95 or $49.95?

Whatever it was - still too much for these dangerous dirt guns.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Why was she going to put down a loaded gun in the first place? Why was she handling it willy nilly in the first place? Why should any manufacturer be held liable for the mishandling of any product they make, especially when it is of no danger when properly handled? If this lady dropped a knife while cutting her steak and it penetrated her shoe and stabbed her toe, is the knife company going to be sued for producing a knife sharp enough to cut meat? Is it going to be sued because it didn't manufacture the knife with a lanyard to wrap around your wrist that if it wasn't wrapped around your wrist the sharp edge is somehow disabled?

Absurdity abounds.

Woody

 

[Arkansas Paul]

In general a loss at the trial court level does not create precedent.

Frank beat me to it.
Generally it takes a higher court decision to establish precedent. In Arkansas that would the the Arkansas Court of Appeals and lastly the Arkansas Supreme Court. Your state may call it something different.

 

[barnbwt]

A company being sued for dangerously poorly made tools that can kill the user through malfunction seems like more of a consumer protection issue than a gun rights issue. Expecting a modern gun to have basic drop safety is like expecting a power drill to be properly insulated against electrocution. Yes, you couod just wear rubber gloves like you should be anyway, but still...

TCB

 

[Frank Ettin]

Why was she going to put down a loaded gun in the first place? Why was she handling it willy nilly in the first place? Why should any manufacturer be held liable for the mishandling of any product they make, especially when it is of no danger when properly handled?...

A company being sued for dangerously poorly made tools that can kill the user through malfunction...

You guys really need to read the OP and the news article linked to before spouting off irrelevancies.

1. The issue of the manufacturer making a defective product is moot. Jennings, the owner of the company, defaulted. The now defunct company did not answer the lawsuit or make an appearance, so it effectively admitted whatever allegations of wrongdoing were set out in the complaint. Whether or not the Jennings/Bryco was at legal fault for making a defective product wasn't adjudicated. He/it just effectively admitted liability.
   
   
2. The jury verdict was against the seller of the gun, Ronald Richardson, owner of the dealer from which the gun was purchased, Shurlington Jewelry and Pawn. The jury's finding of liability appears to be on the following bases:
   
   
   • The plaintiff (the buyer) claimed she was unfamiliar with guns and that she trusted Richardson to steer her in the right direction.
     
     
   • Richardson testified that the gun he sold the plaintiff was one he would never recommend to a family member.
     
     
   • The plaintiff tried firing the gun. The gun jammed. The slide was stuck in battery, cocked, with a round in the chamber.
     
     
   • The plaintiff took the gun to Richardson, who was unable to clear it. He returned it to the plaintiff with instructions to come into the shop at a later date when his "gun guy" would be there. The mishap occurred that night.
   
   
3. Apparently the jury concluded that Richardson should be held to a high standard of care as an expert and that his conduct fell short of that standard of care resulting in him being liable for any damage arising from his want of care.
   
   
   • As far as Richardson being an expert, he was both a license gun dealer and assumed the role by acting as an expert. The plaintiff was a novice, and Richardson knew that. The jury apparently believer that the plaintiff was reasonable in relying on Richardson's apparent expertise.
     
     
   • However, Richardson recommended a gun he admits that he knew was unsuitable.
     
     
   • Furthermore, he returned an obviously malfunctioning gun in a dangerous state to someone he had reason to know did not necessarily have the skill of experience to handle it safely in that condition.
   
   
4. In other words, the case against Richardson comes down to a classic matter of negligence, and the jury found liability on that basis. Whether or not one meets the standard of care is generally a question for the jury. Whether or not the jury was properly instructed on the applicable standard of care, or whether there were other procedural errors, will be questions for the court of appeals if Richardson appeals.

 

[jrdolall]

I have a Jennings J9. It is reliable in that it always goes bang. It sits in my "junk" safe and hasn't been fired in 2-3 years but I don't feel uncomfortable shooting it.

 

[wojownik]

Woody - You're kinda missing the point. She (the plaintiff) is free to bring a claim, even if the merits seem pretty weak. The defendant is allowed to defend themselves, and likely could have raised the question of user negligence to discredit her claims.

The fact of the matter is that the defendant chose not to show up to defend themselves. And got a summary judgement against them for the no-show.

In your example of a knife company, if there were a "steak disaster" and a lawsuit resulted, and the knife manufacturer was a no show ... well again, there would probably be a summary judgement against the knife manufacturer, regardless of how weak or strong the plaintiff's case may be.

And, if it were shown that the plaintiff was filing a fraudulent case against the manufacturer, then the manufacturer could certainly even go after the plaintiff in court. And - in a recent copycat McDonald's coffee spill case - the company and its insurers went after a bogus claim rather vigorously.

Bottom line, though, is that the defendant Bryco is bankrupt, long out of business, in a pretty poor position to defend themselves never mind go after a plaintiff ... and in the end, unless there are still some assets that can somehow be attached, its quite unlikely that the plaintiff will see much of anything of that court award.

Jimenez Arms bought the assets of Bryco at auction after Bryco's bankruptcy after the first court award against them. Just as an afterthought, I don't see how plaintiff in this second award could go after the successor Jimenez successfully.

Why was she going to put down a loaded gun in the first place? Why was she handling it willy nilly in the first place? Why should any manufacturer be held liable for the mishandling of any product they make, especially when it is of no danger when properly handled? If this lady dropped a knife while cutting her steak and it penetrated her shoe and stabbed her toe, is the knife company going to be sued for producing a knife sharp enough to cut meat? Is it going to be sued because it didn't manufacture the knife with a lanyard to wrap around your wrist that if it wasn't wrapped around your wrist the sharp edge is somehow disabled?

Absurdity abounds.

Woody

 

[illinoisburt]

Kind of difficult to tell from the news story if the judgment was against Jennings personally or against the now-closed company. It's a bit difficult to make a personal appearance in a civil suit while incarcerated in prison so not showing isn't terribly suprising. If the suit was against the bankrupt company cannot see much sense in hiring counsel to appear and defend it.

 

[Rule3]

Guys read the article/ As Frank outlined:

"Richardson tried but failed to move the pistol’s slide that was locked in place. He removed the magazine but there was a live round in the chamber and the gun was cocked.

Richardson returned the gun to a zipped case and told Hardware to bring it to the pawn shop the following Monday, when his “gun guy” would be at work and could look at it, according to testimony in the week-long trial.

Later that evening, Billy Bullard was shot in the stomach when Hardware dropped the gun as she was putting her purse and other items on the dining room table. Hardware and a friend rushed the teenage boy to the hospital but he died while his sister cradled him."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It's a bit difficult to make a personal appearance in a civil suit while incarcerated in prison.....

No it's not. He doesn't have to be there in person. He just hires a lawyer and "appears" through his counsel. He doesn't have to physically be in court.