"shot Brandon in the jaw. "
crippling/jaw? darn guns...
Audio
Posted on 05/10/2003 7:51:36 AM PDT by FairOpinion
A California jury has found a firearms manufacturer partially liable in the accidental injury and crippling of a young boy in a unique court ruling against a gun maker.
An Alameda County jury found Bryco Arms largely responsible for the injury of Brandon Maxfield, now 16, of Willits, nine years ago, the San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday.
According to the paper, Brandon was shot in the jaw April 6, 1994. He and a 12-year-old relative were being watched by a family friend who was living with them in their home temporarily.
The Chronicle reported the 12-year-old believed some adult had asked him to get the gun out. When he did, according to the defense attorney in the case, the 20-year-old baby sitter – Larry William Moreford II – took the pistol from the boy. In the process of unloading it, he shot Brandon in the jaw.
"He was trying to unload the gun," said Richard Ruggieri, Brandon's attorney. "In order to do that, he had to put it on 'fire.' The gun slipped in his hand and it went off. This was not a 'child playing with a gun' type of situation."
Ruggieri said the family was "pleased but reserved" about the $50.9 million verdict, while acknowledging it could be some time before Brandon sees any money, if ever.
The jury must first decide what part of the damages each defendant is responsible to pay, said Ruggieri. Two of the defendants in the case are Brandon's parents, as well as Moreford.
Also throwing the verdict in doubt is the probability of an appeal. Assuming Brandon wins that appeal, he will still have to collect the money from defendants, which could also be a problem because of a bill passed last month by the U.S. House of Representatives protecting gun makers from liability.
If passed into law in its current form, the bill – backed by the National Rifle Association – would eliminate almost all civil liability for gun makers, as WorldNetDaily reported earlier.
Ruggieri said the bill may not affect Brandon's case, but he admitted he was concerned about its ramifications.
"We're certainly concerned with it," Ruggieri said. "It would be a human tragedy if something like that would block something like this."
And, the defense attorney told the paper, the case isn't about attacking gun rights.
"This trial is not about the Second Amendment or the right to bear arms," he said. "This is just a case about Brandon."
"shot Brandon in the jaw. "
crippling/jaw? darn guns...
Audio
mrs bill klinton put 3.66% blame on the vast right-wing conspiracy
Our system goes back to William the Conqueror in 1066. You really think we should throw out our thousand year history of rule by Law and start from scratch? Maybe not a bad idea though, the fastest biggest and meanest guns could rule without any restraint. I would count on myself as being among them, of course. I kinda like that idea. Mad Max at the thunderdome on steroids.
The defect, in this case, would be in the design. Like a car that would require the emergency brake to be released before starting, but still would start in drive or reverse. Starting it in gear would still be the operators fault, but the requirement for releasing the brake would amplify any negative results of doing so and be a contributory factor in any accidents. Had the saftey not been required to be off before unloading a loaded gun it would be entirely the operators fault.
The only unintended discharge I've ever had was on a used .22 that had been tinkered with sometime in it's past. Pulling the trigger while the safety was on left trigger disengaged and only the saftey holding the sear from movement. Taking the saftey off resulted in a discharge. It discharged while testing the weapon after purchasing it and the discharge went safely down range.
I am a knowelegable gun handler. Had the pawn shop I bought this from sold it to someone not so knowelegable, and the purchaser had then discharged it in his home or other public area, both the pawn the shop and the gunsmith that the pawn shop had check out it's used guns would have been surely held liable for any injuries.
When an item is sold to the general public, without regard for whether the purchasers are knowelegable of proper useage and hanlding techniques, the liability is different than if sold to, say, a military or a police department with strict handling and inspection procedures.
Many do. Oftentimes for some reason the mechanism is designed so that the safety locks the action in the fully-closed position. Perhaps someone can explain the reasoning behind this.
Actually, quite a few... Many firearms have safeties that not only lock the sear and/or trigger, but also the action as well. One that comes immediately to mind are the Colt 1911 pistol (when the safety is on, you can't retract the slide).
Mark
The defendants are "jointly and severally" liable... that means that if one cannot pay, the others must pay his portion of the judgement... if the babysitter, the family, and the distributor cannot pay through any reason (bankruptcy, death, inability) Bryco could be on the hook for ALL of the judgement. Deep pockets, ya know.
That's not true. The bill actually forbids actions "for damages or injunctive relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party[.]"
Then there are a series of exceptions, when such lawsuits ARE allowed. This particular case in Calif. would have been allowed under the bill that passed the House.
The bill is not very long or complicated--anyone can read it, so try it before you start gracing us with your wisdom on its contents.
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.