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

[illinoisburt]

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.

I perfectly understand that, hence the next sentence that would be no point to hire counsel to represent him in court if the company was named instead of him personally. My comment was more to the issue of other posts saying why didn't the guy show up in person. It seems to point to the suit naming the company.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Frank and wojownik,
I understand the "no-show" by the defendant aspects of this case so no argument from me on that point.

As indicated in the article, it does apear that the court was aware of the fact that this pistol was not in the hands of the owner of the gun when it jammed. The plaintiff did not try to fire the gun according to the article. Who knows what this gun was subject to that caused it to jam. I see no evidence referred to in the article that that avenue had been persued in court. Did the court simply assume that whomever was in control of the pistol when it jammed was an expert in handling firearms?

The pistol was dropped while in its non-functioning, jammed state. Who is to say that the gun would have discharged when dropped had it not been jammed?

The gun was brought to the man who sold her the gun but not to his gun-selling place of business. He couldn't lawfully accept the gun for repair at his liquor store. It requires that the gun be recorded in his A & D book if he is to keep it over night, and store it securely. I can only guess, but that is likely why he told her to bring it back when his "gun guy" was there, assumably at his gun-selling store.

The gun does have a "drop-safe" feature built into it. The cam that releases the sear (when activated by the trigger assembly) is counterweighted to prevent such an action if dropped. The sear also is spring loaded and that spring works in conjunction with the counterweighted cam, and acts to engage the sear by overpowering the counterweighted cam, actually adding to the force required to release the sear. So, we have the cam holding the sear engaged as well as the sear spring.

Then, too, there is the safety lever. It can be engaged to block the sear from releasing the firing pin. The only time the safety cannot be enaged is when the trigger is being held back holding the sear in the 'fire(d)' position. Ergo, in order for the pistol to fire when dropped, it must be cocked and the sear must be released. In order for the sear to be released if the gun is dropped, the safety must be off, the cam must be broken, and the gun must be dropped directly on the butt of the grip from high enough of a perch or thrown down with enough force to assiminale such a drop. Even if the rim on the firing pin that engages the sear was cracked and broken, the sear would still entangle the firing pin spring.

Nothing in the article indicates any broken parts in the gun. Also note that the gun must be in battery in order for the cartridge to discharge. The only thing that could jam the slide from sliding back while it is in battery is the takedown button at the rear of the slide being partially depressed and hung up at the rear of the frame. In that condition, the slide could be lifted UP high enough to raise the cocked firing pin off the tip of the sear and release the firing pin. Even then, a discharge is unlikely since the lifting of the slide would take the gun out of battery, but not entirely impossible.

Regardless, I do believe the "accidental" discharge was due to mishandling of the gun. Albeit that the gun is not of the highest quality, proper handling will keep the gun firing safely for longer than its quaity would suggest. Too much pressure on the trigger can cause parts to bend. Too much pressure on the trigger can break the cam, too. As noted before though, nothing in the article indicates any broken or bent parts.

I, too, would not recommend this gun to anyone. But, if all you have is $89.95 to spend on a new gun, it beats nothing.

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

....hence the next sentence that would be no point to hire counsel to represent him in court if the company was named instead of him personally. My comment was more to the issue of other posts saying why didn't the guy show up in person. It seems to point to the suit naming the company.

The article says that Jennings was sued as the owner of the company, Bryco, that made the gun. Bryco was bankrupt and sold at auction through the bankruptcy proceedings to Jimenez. It's doubtful that Jimenez assumed the liabilities of Bryco. That could make Jennings the indicated defendant.

Of course that raises issues with disregarding the corporate entity (assuming Bryco was incorporated). but since Jennings defaulted none of those issues needed to be hashed out.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Regardless, I do believe the "accidental" discharge was due to mishandling of the gun. Albeit that the gun is not of the highest quality, proper handling will keep the gun firing safely for longer than its quaity would suggest. Too much pressure on the trigger can cause parts to bend. Too much pressure on the trigger can break the cam, too. As noted before though, nothing in the article indicates any broken or bent parts....

But Woody, it doesn't matter what you believe. The jury, who heard the evidence and the arguments and who were instructed on the law by the trial judge, concluded that the plaintiff had proved Richardson's legal liability by a preponderance of the evidence. The article outlined bases upon which a jury might conclude that Richardson had a legal duty to do more than he did under the circumstances.

If Richardson now wants to claim that there were reversible errors of law made at trial, that will be a matter for the court of appeals.

But your idle speculations, without documentation or access to the trial transcript are worthless and meaningless.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

...
But your idle speculations, without documentation or access to the trial transcript are worthless and meaningless.

By the same token, so is this thread. But, at least you now have some insight how this gun works.

Another point that should be noted is the trial judge's 'request' that the plaintif and defendants work out a settlement to avoid an appeal. Doesn't sound like the judge has much confidence in how this trial went.

Woody

 

[grter]

Dropping an automatic pistol with a round in the chamber (after it jammed) into a plastic bag and handing to someone, a novice at that, and telling them to bring it back when your gun help happens to come in to check it out is considered a responsible action by you ??????????

Now someone is dead, another is sued and probably will now be broke and out of business forever.

**********************Edited Out**********************************

 

[barnbwt]

If the gun was in working condition & drop safe (the situation itself strongly suggests otherwise, btw ), how could there be a case against the manufacturer? Obviously the defendant was "busy" at the time, and likely has no more interest in either firearms or the legal system at this point, but the point I made about badly made items with potentially lethal causes carrying liability to the manufacturer still stands. Now, if her argument was that a fully functional weapon, functioning as intended, discharged when her son picked up the gun and pulled the trigger --as the Brady's had tried to argue in suits in years past-- you have a steep hill to demonstrate liability. If your gun was manufactured so bad that the first shot sheared out all the safety mechanisms and was then locked into an unsafe state, which directly lead to a fatality, you could maybe argue the manufacturer bore responsibility beyond the value of the item (simply because the malfunction as described did not harm anyone, but the owner's conduct afterward is what made the situation become fatal)

It seems like the chief point of interest in the case truly is the 'advice from an expert' angle. Which, to be honest, does actually seem like a fairly reasonable argument, to a point. Newbies really don't know about the particulars of guns, and need guidance to use them safely. Gun store clerks really do love giving out advice to anyone who will listen, constituted of varying levels of baloney and outright lies. Maybe these clerks should feel some sort of limited pressure to bite their tongues if they are not willing to stand behind their advice.

It seems unlikely the premise of a dealer taking on liability for choosing to sell a price point item he himself would not use/recommend would be something that would stand up well in other cases. Lots of cut-rate garbage is made and sold, with only the buyer taking on risk with their decision. Look at Harbor Freight; their liability ends at exactly the refund value of the item in question.

Also, legalities of bringing a firearm to a liquor store? ...whatever

TCB

PS- I read the article in a severely sleep deprived state yesterday so I did not notice...but good lord there are a ton of typos in that piece. Seriously. Also, nearly everyone involved in this sounds like they have a made-up name

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Dropping an automatic pistol with a round in the chamber into a plastic bag and handing to someone, a novice at that, and telling them to bring it back when your gun help happens to come in to check it out is considered a responsible action by you ??????????

How about the guy who brought it back from the shooing range in that condition and just handed it over to that very same novice who carried it all the way to the liquor store in that condition?

If you want to talk responsibility, why didn't the guy who had the gun jam on him at the range take it up to the people at the range who could have likely unjammed it right then and there?

As Frank pointed out, without a transcript of the trial(s), all we can do is speculate.

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

...at least you now have some insight how this gun works...

So what? That was apparently not an issue at trial, or at least it doesn't appear to have figured in the result.

...Another point that should be noted is the trial judge's 'request' that the plaintif and defendants work out a settlement to avoid an appeal. Doesn't sound like the judge has much confidence in how this trial went.

Nope. That sort of thing in pretty common. In fact many civil cases wind up settling for a compromise amount in exchange for a waiver of appeal. It's pretty much SOP.

Dropping an automatic pistol with a round in the chamber into a plastic bag and handing to someone, a novice at that, and telling them to bring it back when your gun help happens to come in to check it out is considered a responsible action by you ??????????

How about the guy who brought it back from the shooing range in that condition and just handed it over to that very same novice who carried it all the way to the liquor store in that condition?

If you want to talk responsibility, why didn't the guy who had the gun jam on him at the range take it up to the people at the range who could have likely unjammed it right then and there?

As Frank pointed out, without a transcript of the trial(s), all we can do is speculate.

Except grter's comments aren't based on idle speculation (like yours). They are based on the jury's verdict.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Except grter's comments aren't based on idle speculation (like yours). They are based on the jury's verdict.

There is just so much missing from the information afforded in the article. I must question the verdict based upon the lack of info. It might have been a whole lot different had there been a defense presented. To assume the same verdict would have been reached with a defense presented is ludicrous. The verdict is open to speculation in circumstances such as this. So, I shall speculate.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So what? That was apparently not an issue at trial, or at least it doesn't appear to have figured in the result.

Obviously not. That sort of thing can happen when no defense is presented.

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

There is just so much missing from the information afforded in the article. I must question the verdict based upon the lack of info....

Really now? That's ludicrous. Do you really think that the article reflects all the information that was presented at trial?

The article is just an article, and therefore just highlights. We can be pretty much assured that there was a whole lot more information presented during the course of the trial.

...To assume the same verdict would have been reached with a defense presented is ludicrous....

Why do you think no defense was presented?

...So, I shall speculate.

You usually do. That's just another reason not to take your opinions seriously.

...That sort of thing can happen when no defense is presented...

Why do you assume that no defense was presented?

 

[illinoisburt]

Seems to me the case would be getting into warranty issues with the seller from the description of the primary findings ie his expertise, recommending a product for her stated purposes, knowing the gun was not suitable, proximate and actual causation, damages, etc. The manufacturer wouldn't be a logical party to that suit in my mind, though certainly some type of product liability for the defective gun as manufactured or designed would make sense. However for our purposes it really isn't an issue for anyone outside the parties in the case, though we all get to spend some time speculating how this mess happened. It was a tragedy for the people involved but not something that is going to grow legs and engulf the average person on the street.

 

[danez71]

There is just so much missing from the information afforded in the article. I must question the verdict based upon the lack of info. It might have been a whole lot different had there been a defense presented. To assume the same verdict would have been reached with a defense presented is ludicrous. The verdict is open to speculation in circumstances such as this. So, I shall speculate.

Woody

Wait, whaaat...?

....because the article is light on info you have to question the jury's verdict?

 

[jrdolall]

It looks to me, based on the sketchy details, that the jury decided based on his saying that he would not recommend the gun. I think any lawyer worth his degree (and I do not have a high opinion of lawyers as a whole) could make a jury see that the owner could not legally keep the gun when she brought it back to him in the "jammed" condition since he was at a different business. Giving her back the gun was really his only legal option at that point. Did he warn her that it was extremely dangerous at that point? Every gun guy I know will absolutely hit the panic button if a customer brings in a gun for repair and there is a round in the chamber. Yes, I have seen that happen many times.
We all know that juries can make crazy decisions and bad, or good, lawyers can make a case go in a certain direction.
The Jennings jammed after being taken out and fired by a "friend". I have $1200 guns that have "jammed" and so do most gun owners. Does a person that buys a gun have a moral, ethical or legal obligation to learn how to operate it properly?
I agree completely that a gun "salesman" should not recommend a cheap gun to a novice.
An expert buyer probably knows what he is getting. Is there some law in GA that requires a gun salesman to be an expert? If so then I know where there are a bunch of criminals.

You never know what will happen when a jury hears a case. What YOU think or "know" really is irrelevant if you can't convince those people in the jury.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Why do you assume that no defense was presented?

If you can believe the article, it says that Bruce Jennings never appeared at the original trial to mount a defense. (That left everyone 'downstream' hanging out in the breeze and likely paid a big part in Richardson losing the case against him. Maybe Richardson ought to sue Jennings to recover his losses.)

This also begs the question as to why weren't these guns recalled for rectification once the 'faults' in this gun became known? Just asking.

Woody

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

This also begs the question as to why weren't these guns recalled for rectification once the 'faults' in this gun became known? Just asking.

Wait, are you just now, for the very first time, hearing that the Ring of Fire guns might be ginormous pieces of stinking male bovine droppings?

Seriously?

There's a very good reason they are all banned in my company.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If you can believe the article, it says that Bruce Jennings never appeared at the original trial to mount a defense. (That left everyone 'downstream' hanging out in the breeze and likely paid a big part in Richardson losing the case against him. ....)

But Richardson answered and appeared and put on a defense against the claims against him. He had no obligation to defend the claims made against Jennings, but to the extent that issues regarding the characteristics or quality of the gun were relevant to the claims made against Richardson, he was in a position to put forward evidence in his defense on such issues.

I guess your problem, Woody, is that you know so little about how negligence law and product liability law work that you really don't understand what went on here.

...This also begs the question as to why weren't these guns recalled for rectification once the 'faults' in this gun became known?...

Re-certification? By whom? And the company that made the guns is defunct.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Wait, are you just now, for the very first time, hearing that the Ring of Fire guns might be ginormous pieces of stinking male bovine droppings?

Seriously?

There's a very good reason they are all banned in my company.

I never said I just heard about these guns. The question of why these guns weren't recalled has nothing to do with that.

It's obvious the people who designed this gun went way out on a limb to make these guns as cheaply as possible. Sad part about this is it actually took some ingenuity.

Getting parts stamped out of thin sheet metal to function with the resultant wide tolerances is hard to do and not destined to withstand anything more than a delicate touch. So, yes, I'm aware of the bovine excrement aspects of these guns, except they are TINY pieces of male bovine excrement.

I have actually worked on one of these guns and own a couple of Sterlings as well. I machined a new cam out of tool steel to bring the one back to a serviceable condition. 'Course the new part cost three times what the gun cost originally, but the owner is happy with it. You can see where it broke and how the new part is beefed up. I just took advantage of the space available in the environment wherein it functions.



Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Re-certification? By whom? And the company that made the guns is defunct.

Not re-certification - rectification, and the problem was evident before the company went belly up, wasn't?

Maybe Richardson should have brought up the quality issue at trial and asserted that he was of the impression the guns were represented as being safe by the manufacturer. I certainly doubt Jennings told him the guns were unsafe when he bought them for resale. No one has ever told me the guns I buy for resale are unsafe.

I believe I'm solid on the fact that Hardware brought the gun to the wrong place for repair. I could no more legally accept a gun for repair at some place other than my place of business than he was.

Woody

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

The question of why these guns weren't recalled has nothing to do with that.

Because their entire business plan consisted of building super cheap, craptacular firearms, selling them to suckers, being driven out of business, selling their assets to a friend or acquaintance for pennies on the dollar, then repeating.

Product support was never part of the plan.

Hence, why there never was a recall.

But, since you apparently knew the guns were garbage, and the companies that built them were in fact criminally negligent hucksters out to make a quick buck... one would think you knew before you asked why there was never a recall.

 

[illinoisburt]

You do realize that if this was a product liability case that it doesn't really matter what Richardson thought of the guns, right? Being part of the unbroken chain of distribution of a defective product puts liability squarely on his shoulders just as much as the manufacturer. The laws were changed many years ago specifically because everyone in the chain of distribution (manufacturer/distributor/retailer) used to point a finger at the other guy and claim it wasn't their fault.

If it was a warranty claim (as in Richardson knew how she intended to use the gun then recommended the wrong tool to do the job resulting in this injury), then the fact she as an inexperienced person relied on him and got bad advice puts him on the hook as well.

Sending her away with something he knew to be dangerous would be a negligence claim, which has whole different set of issues involved from the other types of claims.

It's entirely possible Richardson prevailed in defending a bunch of varying claims and only lost on one or two. Without getting a more info from the court you just don't know how this was presented to the jury or which type(s) of claim they deliberated.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Maybe Richardson should have brought up the quality issue at trial and asserted that he was of the impression the guns were represented as being safe by the manufacturer.

Yeah, well... he sunk that ship.

Mr. Richardson, testified that the gun he sold to 21-year-old Tiffany was one he would never recommend to one of his family member

 

[Frank Ettin]

Not re-certification - rectification,...

You're correct. My apologies.

...I believe I'm solid on the fact that Hardware brought the gun to the wrong place for repair....

No you're not. How would Hardware know what to do? She was a complete novice, and Richardson apparently knew that. A jury could conclude that she was reasonable to rely on Richardson's apparently superior knowledge and expertise. And the jury apparently also decided that Richardson, under the circumstances and aware of Hardware's lack of knowledge, did not satisfy his legal duty to act reasonably to avoid a foreseeable risk of harm to Hardware.

Of course evidence on those issues would necessarily have been introduced by Hardware, the plaintiff, to support her theory of why Richardson was liable, and by the defendant, Richardson, to support his theory of why he was not liable. The jury apparently bought Hardware's theory of the case.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You do realize that if this was a product liability case that it doesn't really matter what Richardson thought of the guns, right?...

Yes, that's true in a claim founded on strict liability for the sale of a defective product. Both the manufacturer and the seller can have liability.

But the enactment of the federal Protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 USC 7901, et seq, significantly narrowed the applicability of usual product liability theories to guns and ammunition.

Based on the summary in the news article, Richardson was found liable on a negligence theory.