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."
"...or hammer manufacturers, when people hit their thumbs...
I was about to tee off on this article, but your post changed my mind.
I'm going to be rich! I'm going to be rich!! I'm going to be fabulously RICH!!!.....
You can safely bet Brandon's lawyer will see money, some way, some how. This isn't about Brandon, this is about money, that magical paper substance that bestows the grace of justice upon it's possessors, minus a small transaction cost.
My understanding, from what I have been able to read about this case, is that one had to take the safety off before the gun could be unloaded, and the plaintiffs contended this was a design defect making the gun unreasonably unsafe.
One analogy I have heard is to a lawn mower manufacturer making a lawnmower that you could only change the blades on it while the gas-powered motor was on (which would undoubtedly make it more dangerous).
I believe the vast majority of these lawsuits against gun manufacturers are completely frivolous, but I also allow for the possibility that some guns may be poorly designed or manufactured, making them even more dangerous than they are inherently.
IMHO
BRYCO ARMS
Model Jennings Nine,
9mm LUGER caliber Semiautomatic Pistol
These pistols may create an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CONDITION and a POTENTIAL FOR SERIOUS INJURY by firing without pulling the trigger.
During the testing of a Bryco Arms, Jennings Nine pistol by a forensic firearms examiner it was noted that it would fire upon release of the thumb safety and spontaneously fire in a FULL AUTO MODE on an inconsistent bases. When loaded with the manual thumb safety in the "safe" position, if the trigger of the submitted firearm has been pulled stiffly a few times, the firearm will discharge when the thumb safety is moved to the "fire" position.
Disassembly of the pistol revealed some wear/damage to the sear which allows slight downward movement when the trigger is pulled. It appears due to the wear/damage the sear/striker engagement is reduced allowing the striker to override the sear after the thumb safety is released.
MANUALLY UNLOADING THIS PISTOL MAY BE VERY DANGEROUS SINCE IT COULD DISCHARGE DURING THIS PROCEDURE.
Source:
BTW, the most likely outcome is that the lawyers will pocket millions of dollars and the kid will get a coupon for $100 off future medical care.
Larry Eldridge's _Trials of a Philadelphia Lawyer_, which I read in law school 30 years ago, mentioned one of his cases where a hunter's DOG shot him. He had put his rifle on safe and laid it against a fence while he crossed the fence. His dog knocked the rifle over while jumping the fence and it discharged.
The rifle was bagged by the ambulance crew. Eldridge filed suit for the hunter and the rifle was delivered to the parties' expert witnesses for disassembly. The rifle manufacturer defendant's representative suggested the rifle be placed on a white sheet before disassembly. A little speck came out of the safety when they opened it up and the rifle guy said, "Aha!"
It turned out that the safety had been jammed by some undetonated powder. The experts agreed on how the safety design made that possible, the case was settled and the safety was redesigned.
And no other hunters were injured that way.
The House bill removes all incentives for gun manufacturers to produce safe weapons.
I suppose they'll do the same for car manufacturers next.
Everyone laments the outrageous McDonald's coffee cup verdict, but few heard about McDonald's own internal memos saying that their coffee was much hotter than it needed to be, and that many people had reported burns from spilling coffee, epspecially in their laps in the drive-thru (usually when the lids are not properly affixed). However others at McD's noted that they can squeeze more drinkable coffee out of fewer coffee beans (translating into higher sales and profits) if they make it at a higher temperature. BTW, the plaintiff received the equivalent of one day's coffee profits from McD's sales. Needless to say they are still in business. I wonder of their coffee is still as hot?
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.