What we learned from Jennings and RG Ind.?

[w_houle]

Let's start with Jennings, and the Brandon Maxfield case: The gun is an inherently unsafe design due to having to click off the safety to work the slide. The notion that unsupervised children were doing unsafe things with a known loaded gun is beside the point.
Kelley v. RG Ind.: Man dies as a result of a criminal shooting him. RG is sued as a result because... being shot can result in death.
Is there something I'm not understanding, or did these cases miss the more important issues?
Are these isolated incidents, or are there others like it?

 

[mp510]

IIRC, the Jennings case resulted in a joint but several liability decision. Despite only being partially liable, Jennings was still thrust into bankrupcty. The baby sitter, who armed herself with the pistol in response to a perceived and was manipulating it when the discharge (whcih struck the child) occurred was also found partially liable. The decision found that the design was inherently defective because the safety had to be taken off fro the slid to be manipulated. This concerns me a bit--a lot of pistols (ie 1911 types) have safeties that lock the slide closed. Many bolt action rifles are similar too.

Here is a good read about the RG case.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Arrow1.html

 

[MedWheeler]

So, don't you think that, more importantly than the design of the gun, the idea that a loaded gun shouldn't be pointed at the child you're watching while you're fumbling with it, is among what "should have been learned"?
There are thousands of firearms out there that require that "safeties" be disengaged to unload or perform other tasks with them, yet the rate of these types of incidents is extremely low. This is because the vast majority of owners of such pieces are, ahem, familiar with them.
It is no more an "unsafe design" than is the fact that a Corvette can reach some never-called-for speeds, or that some ladders can escalate to heights that would be dangerous from which to fall.
A properly maintained, loaded, and handled firearm has never accidentally discharged.

Edit: Regarding the RG case (back in 1988), outcomes like that depend largely on the opinions of those presiding over the court at the time. After all, a virtually identical suit against the maker of a .380ACP firearm (Davis, I think) used in the slaying of a Florida schoolteacher by a student (teacher's name: Barry Grunow) just down the road from me in about 1999 was dismissed. No liability was determined to exist despite the plaintiffs' claim that the gun's being a SNS made it more likely to be criminally misused, and that it was marketed primarily as such.

 

[Jim K]

It just goes to show that a tort lawyer can invent any kind of "liability" to get a little money for a victim and a whole lot of money for himself. (I have known cases where the award was a million dollars and the lawyers got all but a couple of thousand.)

It is up to the defense attorney to rebut such nonsense, but as a rule neither attorney knows anything about guns - they pay an "expert" to lie the way they want. And since the jury knows nothing about guns either (any potential juror who does will be sent home), the lawyer who can cry and weep the loudest wins.

Jim

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

If you want to start a gun company, have deep pockets?

 

[mp510]

So, don't you think that, more importantly than the design of the gun, the idea that a loaded gun shouldn't be pointed at the child you're watching while you're fumbling with it, is among what "should have been learned"?
There are thousands of firearms out there that require that "safeties" be disengaged to unload or perform other tasks with them, yet the rate of these types of incidents is extremely low. This is because the vast majority of owners of such pieces are, ahem, familiar with them.
It is no more an "unsafe design" than is the fact that a Corvette can reach some never-called-for speeds, or that some ladders can escalate to heights that would be dangerous from which to fall.
A properly maintained, loaded, and handled firearm has never accidentally discharged.

A key point raised by the plaintiff is that earlier, otherwise nearly mechanically identical, Jennings models did incorporate a safety that allowed the pistol to be manipulated while on safe. They also claimed that the manuals for those pistols encouraged them to be cleared on-safe.

 

[w_houle]

They also claimed that the manuals for those pistols encouraged them to be cleared on-safe.

I seen that and was confused by that as well, but passed it off as a typo.
Ahh let's see... Calwestco Inc model Jennings j-22 and j-25
UNLOADING WITHOUT FIRING: Always point your pistol in a safe direction and move the Safety to Safe ("S") before attempting to unload your pistol.
I am looking at the gun pictured on the front and in the parts diagram and the gun is the toggle safety. Either it's a typo or the manual was written by someone who never actually handled the gun... ever. Oh, and to the best of my knowledge there was only one kind of safety put on the Jennings style .380s

 

[MedWheeler]

My J-22 is a Calwestco, with the safety that slides forward and back, not up and down like newer models (mine is from around 1987.) I'll check it out; is that the series involved?

Okay, checked it.. don't know what the manual says, since that's long gone, but the slide can be cycled with the safety in either position. So, the newer ones cannot be unloaded with the safety on? Anyone else wanna 'fess to owning one to advise?