Fair enough Frank!
TLDR: They need to prove centuries design could lead to this result.
My (Non-lawyer) opinion? Century is going to end up settling and changing the safety design, because a wrong jury/judge could be convinced Century could have foreseen this misuse. However, the case is purely codswallop and the lawyer and plaintiff likely know that. Of course, can century PROVE they know that?
Well, my understanding of the Firearms industry liability protection comes down to that there needs to be inadequate instructions/warnings, a manufacturing defect, or it must be defective in design.
So, addressing them one at a time...
From a quick google Centurys instructions for their C39 include never to trust the safety as it may fail. They also warn to check that the firearm is not loaded before field stripping, and to have the gun checked periodically by a professional gunsmith for "worn or damaged parts". Basically... as long as the manual that was provided with the AK's is similar or the same, it sounds like that claim for liability is out as they put ample warnings in place. This MAY also protect them should the part that caused the discharge was worn/damaged. (
http://www.centuryarms.com/media/wysiwyg/pdf/C39_Series_of_Rifles_Manual_FINAL.pdf)
For manufacturing defect. For this, according to Cornell's legal dictionary, it has to meet the following definition: "a manufacturing defect is a defect in a product that was not intended. This kind of defect occurs when a product departs from its intended design and is more dangerous than consumers expect the product to be." (
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/manufacturing_defect)
Leaving, a defective design, which, without reading the actual complaint, I assume is the claim being made. In this case there's a need to prove that the risk was foreseeable by the manufacturer, and whether it was possible and reasonable to reduce the risk.
Now, clearly there are available alternatives for the part that would prevent this from happening...so if the court decides the manufacturer is liable for a defective design, they're likely to lose significantly.
Leaving...was there a reasonable ability for the manufacturer to foresee the risk. That's hard to say, and even if they do believe Century bears partial liability for negligence, the owners, if using worn or improperly operating the firearms could bear a level of the liability for their own negligence.
Of course, if the firearms are purchased "new", and functioned in an unsafe way (safety could be pushed past the point triggering the hammer) then the risk to Century appears to be higher as Century would then have to defend against the product being a manufacturing defect.
So, to my understanding the plaintiffs have to prove that the risk was foreseeable (I would say no, but I'm not the one deciding, and that can go so many different ways its not funny), that it was possible to reduce or eliminate the risk (Definitely possible), and that Century bears some degree of liability for their negligence (What is a reasonable period of time to go between checks by a professional gunsmith? Were the warnings specific enough to prevent injury had they been followed?) and whether the plaintiffs hold any liability for their own negligence, and if so, how much? (Easy for us to say they do since it seems blatantly obvious you shouldn't push the safety that far, but is it going to be obvious to those deciding the case?)
So...really...what it comes down to is can the lawyer prove to the court that the gun was used in a way that a normal consumer would use it and that caused the gun to fire? I'd say no. Additionally...one of the warnings in the manual above is "WARNING! The safety lever should not extend below the safety lever stop on
the bottom of the receiver
or rise past the receiver cover. If this occurs, have the rifle inspected by a competent gunsmith before further use."
If Century can prove that the plaintiff did not abide by the product warnings...and depending on the level of liability placed upon the manufacturer by the court.
The complaint was filed in Florida, and it seems that Florida applies Strict Liability to product liablity suits...which by their standards means all the lawyer has to do is that "A product is unreasonably dangerous if the product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer"(
http://corporate.findlaw.com/litiga...g-defects-vs-design.html#sthash.Q58N2wvE.dpuf), and while Florida does have a Firearms industry liability law (
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.331.html) IF the plaintiff can prove that there is a defect of design...IF.
)