When is it OK to sue gun manufacturers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zen21Tao

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
1,960
Location
Gainesville, Fl
I was strapping on my Glock 27 (IWB carry) tonight to go out to the store when I thought of how much I can’t wait to get my Kahr PM40 back from them. It is much easier to just toss a pocket pistol/revolver in a pocket to run such a quick error. The reason the PM40 is at Kahr is that I was having problems with the slide not completely moving forward each time it was fired. Then I had the thought of what could happen if I needed to use it (my Kahr PM40) and such a failure ended up in me getting shot or stabbed by an armed attacker. Should I be able to sue Kahr in such a situation?

Let me say that I am 100% in favor of legislation that prevents gun manufacturers from being sued for the results of the (miss) use of their products. But, what about if a product defect results in injury? Should gun manufacturers be treated like all other manufacturers? I can see the arguments being raised that we pro-gun folk view guns as "just another tool" used by man, so YES, they should not be treated any differently than other product manufacturers. However, I can also see the arguments being raised claiming that such an allowance could create a “slippery slope” for gun grabbers to use against us. Since firearms are such a hot target by antis, should manufacturers have more protection from litigation in the form of less responsibility for product defects?

What do you guys think? Personnally, I lean towards the "treat them as any other product side."
 
You can still sue a gun manufacturer for lots of reasons. You just can't sue them because their product is designed to kill or for the sake of trying to bankrupt the company because you don't like them.

I don't think you could sue them successfully for a gun jamming though because any halfway responsible person would shoot the gun a lot before trusting their life to it. Also, no gun maker that I know of makes a claim to 100% flawless function.
 
If you are injured by a defective product (the weapon fires with the safety engaged, the weapon kabooms, etc.) you can still sue a gun manufacturer. If you pull the trigger and a bullet comes out and injures someone, you can't sue the gun manufacturer because the trigger should have been 100lbs and the gun equipped with a smart detection chip to protect you from your own stupidity/criminal impulses.
 
If its a defective product, you can sue and should be able to sue just like any other defective product. Though of course its always good to try to get it resolved through normal channels, and if that fails then sue.
 
When the bullet comes out the wrong end of the barrel. :evil:

Seriously like the others said, if its defective sue. You should not have a legitimate suit if you claim the manufacturer should have had some control over what end user got a hold of the gun or how they used it.
 
and you also shouldn't be able to sue McDonalds because you dumped your HOT coffee on your lap instead of in your mouth, but it happens. This isn't so much a gun issue (it is but it goes farther than that), it's the whole attitude in this country now of "you have to pay me because I'm dumb and hurt myself". Bottom line is ALL companys deserve the same protection. If a defective product breaks, explodes, catches fire etc. and somebody gets hurt, then a law suit is in order. Dumb-dumb wounds (you get hurt because you're dumb) don't count.

Josh

Edited to comply with Rule #3 of the Forum Rules
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the situation you describe, you should be able to sue Kahr after you should be able to sue GM because you let your tires go flat and decided to drive on the highway anyway; if you're intelligent enough to be able to carry a gun, you should be intelligent enough to recognize when your firearm requires maintenance.
 
Since when does a handgun manufacturer guarantee even its proper use and function will stop your attacker? The reason you would have been injured wasn't the gun's failure, its was the Violent Criminal Actor's attack.

You might have more success claiming body armor failed to stop a round it was tested to stop.


Stop focusing on the ability of your handgun to stop anyone. Handguns are marginally effective at best. If it doesn't work properly, get it fixed. If it still doesn't run reliably enough for you, then replace it. And remember that your handgun is still a compromise and a substitute for more effective firearms like long guns.


Edited to add: A proper time for a lawsuit is when you are injured due to a defect or poor design allowing you to be injured by it.
 
I don't think you could sue them successfully for a gun jamming though because any halfway responsible person would shoot the gun a lot before trusting their life to it. Also, no gun maker that I know of makes a claim to 100% flawless function.
Click to expand...

and

In the situation you describe, you should be able to sue Kahr after you should be able to sue GM because you let your tires go flat and decided to drive on the highway anyway; if you're intelligent enough to be able to carry a gun, you should be intelligent enough to recognize when your firearm requires maintenance.
Click to expand...


I agree that you SHOULDN'T be able to sue for misues of products but the legal doctrine that applies to product defects (as it is now) doesn't. This is big part of the side of me that doesn't want to see firearms held to the same weak standards other products are.

If we were talking about the legal doctrine of negligence then the injured part would have to prove fault on the part of the manufacturer and that they didn't use the product in a manner that a reasonable person could foresee causeing injury. However, product defects are NOT governed by the doctine of negligence, they are governed under the legal doctrine of Strict Liability. That is, the injured party doesn’t have to prove negligence on the manufactures part, only that the product was "defective." Another main point under Strict Liability if “misuse” of a product. It is assumed under the doctrine of Strict Liability that manufactures should be able to foresee that some people will misuse their products and thus construct they have a duty to manufacture their products such that injuries don’t occur EVEN as the result of misuses.

This is where I have the problem. Or rather, where my fear of a “slippery slope” lies. How long will it be before antis to get their argument that “criminal misuse should be foreseen, therefore gun manufactures are liable” to hold water as long as they are held to the doctrine of Strict Liability? We all know it is stupid and illogical, but what about liberal lawyers and judges?
 
The reason you would have been injured wasn't the gun's failure, its was the Violent Criminal Actor's attack.
Click to expand...

If manufactures were held to the doctrine of Negligence this would be the best argument against such a case. To show negligence one has to show a breach of duty (or the product dect) was THE DIRECT PROXIMATE CAUSE. It would be much easier under this legal doctrine to show that the guns failure and the injury were close enough in the chain of events to be considered “proximately causal.” However, such a requirement isn't necessary under the doctrine of Strict Liability


You won't be running too many more "errors" the first time you manage to catch that trigger on something else in your pocket.

Holster it, please, at least minimally, even a pocket holster.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your concern. Even though the PM40 has a long trigger pull like a revolver, I always do pocket carry in a holser.
 
Last edited:
If it goes off while you're looking down the barrel (checking for obstructions?)...
I'd laugh you out of court... but I'm not in charge.
Many accidents, or malfunctions, wouldn't cause injury or death if only the basic rules were followed.
 
Say what?

You won't be running too many more "errors" the first time you manage to catch that trigger on something else in your pocket.

Holster it, please, at least minimally, even a pocket holster.
Click to expand...

Having carried a J-Frame S&W Model 36 in my front jeans pockets for many years, I'd LOVE to hear about this one.

Likewise, my Kahr K9 rides there on occasion. It's got a heavy DAO trigger, just like the J-Frame revolver, and nothing else in my pocket. So tell me why I'm living on borrowed time, please. I'm all ears. :scrutiny:
 
The recent Lawsuit Reform bill for gun manufacturers limits negligence issues with firearms to negligent entrustment (you give a firearm to someone you should have reasonably known could not legally possess it) and negligence per se (you break the law).

Check out the text of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 397) on Google for an example of what I am talking about.
 
Malfunction

You're using new, manufacturer recommended ammo, you pull the trigger and the gun 'splodes.

You take shrapnel to the face.

You have medical bills.

You probably have a valid cause of action.
 
My kahr MK-9 had a 5 lb trigger pull and my
642-2 has a 11lb triggerpull.On the kahr all
thats needed for a ND is a short push on the
trigger.On the 642-2 the trigger is heavier,
the cylinder needs to turn and the hammer
has to cock before it fires.Depending on how
snug the pocket is you would need more
pressure on the trigger to fire the revolver.I wouldn't carry my kahr in a pocket without a
holster but have no problems doing that with
my J frame.
 
Then I had the thought of what could happen if I needed to use it (my Kahr PM40) and such a failure ended up in me getting shot or stabbed by an armed attacker. Should I be able to sue Kahr in such a situation?
Click to expand...

Sure, you should be able to sue them. Kahr manufactures a mechanical product that they guarantee to be free from defects due to workmanship. If you can prove that the pistol failed due to a defect in their workmanship, then you should be entitled to having your weapon fixed and nothing more. ABSOLUTELY nothing more.

The fact that you were forced, by a 3rd party who was committing an illegal act, to use their weapon is not Kahr’s fault or their problem past ensuring that your weapon is free from defects attributable to them. You shouldn’t have gotten into a situation that ended up in you being shot or stabbed. Kahr can’t control where you go or who confronts you.

If however, you sue, and it can be proven that it was your negligence in not following their break-in procedure (it is in the manual) or performing periodic maintenance then you should be responsible for all legal costs. The situation in which the product fails should have no bearing on the decision because you accepted the risks of failure when you purchased the product. Almost every well written warranty states something along these lines.

For instance, If your HDD fails and you lose all your data, it is not the responsibility of the HDD manufacturer to compensate you for that data. You should have backed it up. If your phone line goes down due to Solar Sun Spot Gamma X-Ray Gravitonic blah blah blah, you aren’t entitled to sue the company for lost income since you can’t run your telemarketing business. You should have a backup line. Same goes for almost every product out there. Unless it was defective due to the manufacturing process, they owe you nothing IMHO.
 
>>quote<<and you also shouldn't be able to sue McDonalds because you dumped your HOT coffee on your lap instead of in your mouth, but it happens. >>end quote<<

The coffee was served at 185 degrees F.... hot enough to cause full thickness burns to human skin in 2 to 7 seconds. The person from that lawsuit actually had to have skin grafts to repair the burned flesh. Other places serve coffee in the 135-140 degree F range. The jury award of $2.7 Million was knocked down by the court to $480,000.


If the pistol's manufacturer has a warranty to cover defects in workmanship, they should make good on it.
 
Perhaps you could sue your parents for not transmitting the genes for sufficient nimbleness, sharp eyesight, quick reactions, and other factors that would have enabled you to prevail. Maybe you could even sue your attacker's parents for transmitting such genes to him without monitoring his behavior to ensure that he didn't misuse them.

Consider suing your church if you dropped money in the collection plate and prayed for God's protection: it evidently was not granted. I wonder what the outcome of such a suit would be if the church called your attacker as a witness and he testified that he tithed and prayed too. Maybe the jury would conclude that he was better at it than you?

It would be prudent for you to change your name to "Michael Bloomberg" immediately so that if such an awful event occurred you would stand a chance of prevailing and winning public approval.

:)
 
The coffee was served at 185 degrees F.... hot enough to cause full thickness burns to human skin in 2 to 7 seconds. The person from that lawsuit actually had to have skin grafts to repair the burned flesh. Other places serve coffee in the 135-140 degree F range. The jury award of $2.7 Million was knocked down by the court to $480,000.
Click to expand...
The media certainly boiled it down to something far more simpel than it was. There is a huge list of other restaurants that serve coffee at that temperature though including places like starbucks. When I brew coffee it comes out at a temperature pretty close to this. The national coffee association says its within the ideal temperature range. A similar case against bunn failed.

From the judge's opinion:
The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 degrees F to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150 degrees F to 160 degrees F, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 degrees F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.
Click to expand...

Anyway I'm torn on it, it really was much more complex than the media let on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top