Posted on 08/30/2009 12:10:48 PM PDT by Ja7430
WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline)-The family of an Illinois boy who was fatally shot by his friend have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a federal law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits.
The family of Joshua Adames want the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 overturned, a move that would allow them to sue a gun manufacturer over the 13-year-old boy's accidental death.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalnewsline.com ...
I have no doubts that this court will overturn and allow the lawsuit to go on.
“Illinois family seeks to sue gun manufacturer over boy’s death”
Did the weapon malfunction somehow?
From the article:
Adames was killed after his friend, 13-year-old Billy Swan, aimed and fired a Beretta 92FS semiautomatic pistol at him. The gun belonged to Swan’s father, a Cook County sheriff’s deputy who was working as a correctional officer.
Court papers say Swan took the magazine clip out of the gun before firing it, but a single bullet that had remained in the chamber killed Adames.
A lawsuit was filed against Beretta U.S.A. Corp. and Cook County Sheriff Michael Sheahan, among other defendants, claiming that the gun maker failed to warn users that simply removing the clip did not render the gun safe.
Well, then I hope that knife, hammer, candlestick, rope and manufacturers of pretty much anything nor made from Nerf are ready for the onslaught of cases against them.
sarc/
It’s unfortuate that they experienced the loss of their child, but the protection of lawful commerce in arms act isn’t going anywhere.
No intellectually honest person can draw a line from the unlawful end use of a firearm to the manufacturer unless it’s old Bill Ruger himself pulling the trigger.
This is why we have labels that tell you not to use your blow dryer in the shower.
claiming that the gun maker failed to warn users that simply removing the clip did not render the gun safe.
#1 rule of gun safety is treat all weapons as if they are loaded.
It’s good to be a lawyer, I guess.
I didn't believe that the 92FS would fire without its magazine.
However, what's with people not clearing their weapons?
No, of course not. It performed exactly as advertised. The obvious criminal failure here is with the Libtard parents who were criminally negligent in teaching their children basic gun safety.
“A lawsuit was filed against Beretta U.S.A. Corp. and Cook County Sheriff Michael Sheahan, among other defendants, claiming that the gun maker failed to warn users that simply removing the clip did not render the gun safe.”
I’m a “wheel gun” guy, but I find it hard to believe that this is not covered in the literature one receives when buying a Beretta. Is this true?
“A lawsuit was filed against Beretta U.S.A. Corp. and Cook County Sheriff Michael Sheahan, among other defendants, claiming that the gun maker failed to warn users that simply removing the clip did not render the gun safe.”
This reminds of an incident I read a few years ago about a now deceased imbecile who played Russian Roulette with a .45 automatic. Should have gone second...
As a friend who’s a highway engineer is fond of saying re: his job, “The problem with making something foolproof is that fools are so inventive.”
I understand tremendous grief and how it affects the ability to think clearly, but that claim as grounds for a lawsuit is stupid. The lawyer bringing this suit should have to pay all court costs as I can't imagine they can win.
I bet Sotomayer just can’t wait to have this case come across her desk.
Just tried it with my 92FS. It will fire with mag removed.
I’m going to sue Microsoft for the D I got on my essay, written on Word.
Gosh, for the "size of our deficit under obama"th time.
Follow.....the ....money.
It will be done until money is no longer worth the paper it is printed on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.