Jury rules against gun maker

[bg]

Seems to me that folks back in the 19th century were a lil smarter. When one
used an SAA one kept the hammer on an empty chamber or sometimes
with a rolled bill in it for burying expenses and the hammer was retained
by a simple leather loop built into the front top of the holster to keep the
weapon as stationary and secure as possible..

Like a member here stated. Guy was paid for being stupid.

 

[Lucky]

Agree that payout is small, and the FA should still appeal, and when all is said and done they'll probably end up spending more on their own lawyers then this schmuk gets.

But that's a big hole, 5x8"! Is that a typo? I'm understanding the bullet went in his calf and came out the shin. They never described it too well in the previous articles. That would mean that the bullet basically separated his lower leg into two pieces, wow~!

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Notice this part:

Baker said the jury assigned 50 percent of the responsibility for the accident to Taylor, making the actual award against the company $300,000

So, they aren't entirely blaming the gun company, they said the guy was half at fault. That is something, however small.

 

[XD Fan]

Asinine judgement. The product was not defective. This would be the equivilant of me taking the guards off a table saw and suing the company when I cut my fingers off.

 

[mlandman]

XD Fan posted -
Asinine judgement. The product was not defective. This would be the equivalent of me taking the guards off a table saw and suing the company when I cut my fingers off.

Why do you think consumer circular saws have 3" power cords on them? Someone cut their saw's power cord and sued the company for a "Defective Design", and won!

Genius has it's limits, but there is NO end to stupidity!​

 

[ArmedBear]

A few things to learn from this...

.454 is a pretty powerful round.

Carrying an old-style single-action with a loaded chamber under the hammer is just as dangerous as it was 150 years ago. (What's odd, though, is that the original revolvers had safety notches so the hammer could rest between chambers safely. Why these were eliminated I will never know!)

Finally, Ruger put in the safety transfer bar 35 years ago in response to just such a lawsuit. I'm certain that Freedom Arms' management is aware of this, and they probably all own or have owned Ruger revolvers. While IMO this is another case of lawsuit abuse, it should have been no big surprise to Freedom Arms.

 

[XD Fan]

Okay, MLand. Good point. As others have said here, tort reform is the issue that needs addressed.

 

[Jim K]

Is it a coincidence that "lawyer" and "liar" sound almost the same?

Jim

 

[Glockman17366]

First, I expect them to appeal the verdict. They should, but their insurance company may nix that.
Second, file a slander lawsuit against the lawyers involved. Calling a gun defective harms the manufacturer, owners and shareholders of a company.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I have heard that the problem was that the model of Freedom Arms revolver being used did not have a half cock, and when the guy's coat pulled back on the hammer, the hammer fell forward. Since there was no half cock, the gun fired.

If this is what happened, then a half cock notch would have prevented this. Since half cocks have been around for ages, I suspect that is the angle the lawyers went at.

Now, why Freedom arms would have designed a revolver without a half cock is unknown to me. I am surprised their engineers and lawyers would have let them.

 

[Hawk]

It probably didn't help that the model 97 does have a transfer bar.

I can see some disquieting questions coming out of implementing a transfer bar across only part of the line. IANAL but in the wild and wacky world of tort, would it have been better to produce the 97 with the type 83 works?

Another irrelevant observation of mine is that the 83 looks like a transfer bar gun - frame mounted fireing pin and all.

I did download the manual and it's brutally clear. I'd have assigned 100% of the responsibility to the plaintiff but I'm old fashioned that way.

 

[Flintlock Tom]

I'm having trouble visualizing how this happened. When I pull the hammer back on my revolvers, the cylinder turns. If the hammer falls prematurely the primer is out of line with the firing pin.
Can someone explain this to me.

 

[elrod]

Maybe I'm not too smart, but why was this case tried in Ohio? The event happened in Wyoming. O.K., The guy lived in Ohio, is that grounds to try in Ohio? I guess if I filed more lawsuits, I'd know that! I don't believe a Wyoming jury would have made the gunmaker pay.

 

[Hazzard]

I don't currently own a SA so I'm kind of working from memory here Flintlock Tom, but I don't think the cylinder on a SA revolver starts to turn until you reach the half cock position. If the hammer was pulled to less than that and released the firing pin would still contact the primer. If I'm wrong here others will probably, and rightfully, correct me.

On a seperate note, did FA make a model 83 without a half cock as a previous poster suggested?

 

[bg]

^^ I guess it's quite a limp to Wyoming from Ohio..

 

[Hawk]

On a seperate note, did FA make a model 83 without a half cock as a previous poster suggested?

It has a half-cock but the hammer "safety position" is more of a 1/8th cock. The face is barely back from the frame. I don't own one but the manual is a 2.5MB download. It repeatedly suggests not keeping a round in the chamber in line with the barrel and firing pin, rather like an SAA.

I can't figure out if the incident involved the hammer simply going forward or if the cylinder rotated when the duster "fanned" the piece in which case keeping an empty chamber under the hammer wouldn't have helped.

It's my first time through the manual. Perhaps Jim March will be by - he does a much better job of explaining the FA.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Honestly, I am surprised at this verdict. I didn't think he had a leg to stand on.

[Mork]Arr, arr, arr![/Mork] Sorry, that's in bad taste. At any rate, if the jury was to award anything at all, I'm glad they knocked it down to a mere pittance, comparatively. I was once on a similar jury. It was for a million dollars. We agreed on most things but the money. The plaintiff got a hundred grand. I personally don't believe in taking care of people's entire families for generations on one award. Even if it's against an insurance company.