Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-10-2003, 01:33 PM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
sixate's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
Gun maker liable in shooting of boy

LINKY

Quote:
Gun maker liable
in shooting of boy

Jury also slaps parents, baby sitter with judgments in civil suit

Posted: May 10, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


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."


What a bunch off crap. Gun makers are not the problem. Dumb people are the problem!
sixate is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 01:35 PM   #2 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Indiana
Could someone please explain to me why the manufacturer should pay $50.9 million?
rs8001 is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 01:39 PM   #3 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
I can see the genius of "a jury of one's peers" in criminal cases.
In civil cases - there must be a better method.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 01:51 PM   #4 (permalink)
Riiiiight........
 
its a fault in the gun's design. thats why.

not being able to put the gun into safe, while unloading, imho, is a serious design flaw.

Of course, the adult is at fault as well.
dimbulb is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 01:52 PM   #5 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
I believe the bill mentioned protecting manufacturers excludes liability protection for a faulty gun, so IF the gun malfunctioned, I can see a case (although 50 million dollars seems excessive.)

Guns today are also sold with trigger locks. Why didn't the parents have it on the gun, especially with children in the house?

Maybe I'll get flamed for this, but I can see an arguement for granting rights, including the right to have a gun and to have children, based on intelligence tests.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 01:55 PM   #6 (permalink)
Here
 
World's King's Avatar
 
Location: Denver City Denver
Guns don't kill people...


It's mothers that break out of jail and take their 3 year-old son hostage at gunpoint that kill people.
__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown
World's King is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 01:57 PM   #7 (permalink)
Insane
 
nefarious's Avatar
 
Location: Tucson, AZ
i really do hope they pass that law protecting gun makers.

if someone rams a car into yours and you get paralyzed, do you sue the car maker? NO!

it's just a way to try to make some money.. i think
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
- Vegetius "Do Re Mil.3, Prol.
nefarious is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 02:01 PM   #8 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
dimbulb, understood.

My issue is with excessive over-the-top cash awards that juries have a tendency to mandate. It's a give-away-someone-else's-money mentality. It's a once-in-a-lifetime power rush that people get and it hurts legitimate businesses, and incites people to sue in a win-the-lottery type crapshoot.
In the name of "justice" it's just plain unsavory.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 02:07 PM   #9 (permalink)
Insane
 
The original article goes a little more into depth

<a href=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/05/08/national0416EDT0482.DTL> Orig. Article </a>

I'm curious as to why the parents are beign held responsible at all, seeing as the child is a minor, couldn't they just take any money the were liable to pay him?
inkriminator is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 03:28 PM   #10 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
I agree that the gun should be able to unload without disengaging the trigger lock. I think almost 51 million dollars is excessive.

I think that parents who leave loaded guns in the house not locked up should not be allowed to recieve punitive damages in liability cases. I think a reasonabe settlement would be for the gun manufacturer to pay the child's medical bills and be forced to recall all guns that cannot be unloaded with the safety on. Gun control is not the answer, responsible ownership and sensible design are.
MSD is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 04:59 PM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
gov135's Avatar
 
Location: Midwest
Quote:
Originally posted by ARTelevision
dimbulb, understood.

My issue is with excessive over-the-top cash awards that juries have a tendency to mandate. It's a give-away-someone-else's-money mentality.

This is what invites frivolous lawsuits. They need capped. Sorry, Sixate, it does look like the manufacturer produced a defective product and should be partially liable. But noone's jaw is worth that much money. This kid would not have gone on to make 50 Mil. with his flapper.
gov135 is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 05:53 PM   #12 (permalink)
Fledgling Dead Head
 
krwlz's Avatar
 
Location: Clarkson U.
i hate thses type of cases, ill bet 50 million that it was a case based entirly on sypathy, and it was just easier fr the gun mfr to go along with it....complete and total fucking bullshit.
krwlz is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 08:25 PM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
sapiens's Avatar
 
Location: Some place windy
Quote:
Originally posted by gov135
This is what invites frivolous lawsuits. They need capped. Sorry, Sixate, it does look like the manufacturer produced a defective product and should be partially liable. But noone's jaw is worth that much money. This kid would not have gone on to make 50 Mil. with his flapper.
I agree. $50 million is absurd, even if the manufacturer was partly to blame. We all end up paying for excessive verdicts like this.
sapiens is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 10:32 PM   #14 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Woohoo! Free money! Now to stick my tongue in an electric socket, and sue the power company.

I wonder if this was granted in the infamous 9th District Court (or whatever court that keeps getting turned down). In any case, it'll probably get shot down in the appeals process.

And speaking of which, I wonder how 'concerned' the parents were for their child once they found out they were $50.9 million richer?
__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing"
- Voltaire
Quadraton is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 10:55 PM   #15 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quadraton,

Yes, this was in San Francisco, in the juridiction of the 9th Circuit and will likely be appealed to them, which they will probably uphold which will then probably be overturned.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 11:43 PM   #16 (permalink)
Registered User
 
sixate's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
Maybe I'll get flamed for this, but I can see an arguement for granting rights, including the right to have a gun and to have children, based on intelligence tests.
That's a GREAT idea.

gov135, a quick question. Don't you think it's the consumers responsibility to actually take a look at the gun that they are about to buy and make sure they don't get a generic gun? What reason would someone buy that unless they were uneducated? I know when I'm looking to buy a new product I research and learn as much as possible so I don't get screwed. I think people need to take responsibility and stop blaming dumb manufacturers. We, the consumers, can make companies change if we know what we're doing. The problem is there are too many dumb people out there who don't care. Therefore, I don't care when stuff like this happens.
sixate is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 11:44 PM   #17 (permalink)
Human
 
SecretMethod70's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
The gunmaker - in this case - is partially liable. Their design flaw did contribute to this accident.

$50 million hoever is absolutely absurd. They should be required to do no more than cover 1/2 of his medical bills (parents are liable for the other half) and perhaps a million or 2 at the most to compensate for the EXTREME impact that this incident had on this kids life.

The rest is entirely the parent's fault.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
SecretMethod70 is offline  
Old 05-11-2003, 01:17 AM   #18 (permalink)
Veteran
 
Snoogans's Avatar
 
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Quote:
The jury said one-third of blame for the shooting falls on Maxfield's parents for leaving a loaded weapon in their Willits home.
What kind of dumbass leaves a loaded gun at home with the kids and babysitter?
__________________
Internet hint: If someone's asking if what they do is weird, it always is.
Snoogans is offline  
Old 05-11-2003, 06:46 AM   #19 (permalink)
Loser
 
Location: With Jadzia
Quote:
Originally posted by Snoogans
What kind of dumbass leaves a loaded gun at home with the kids and babysitter?
Good question and a good suggestion by Lebell about people who own guns and have children.
As to the question of how much a persons jaw is worth.
It is a fact that almost all awards get cut in by huge amounts because the insurance companies have banks of lawyers to do just that.
A cap on settlements would just mean less work for their lawyers and piddly settlements.
Most jurys give huge settlements either to punish the company or to make sure the amount the person gets is resonable.
If you had your jaw shot off, knowing that for the rest of your life things like getting jobs, a partners and not being stared at everytime you go to dinner would be worth a lot.
redravin40 is offline  
Old 05-11-2003, 08:20 AM   #20 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
man... the day has finally come...my next lawsuit prediction is people getting run over by cars, and then suing FORD/GM/TOYOTA because the car didn't avoid the person.

gun makers liable for someone else's STUPIDITY IN GUN HANDLING and OPERATION???????

ABSURD.

Why was the adult handling a LOADED weapon in the immediate vicinity of a child?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 05-11-2003, 11:43 AM   #21 (permalink)
Hello, good evening, and bollocks.
 
Fearless_Hyena's Avatar
 
Location: near DC
why wasn't the shooter pointing the gun in a safe direction while unloading it?
Fearless_Hyena is offline  
Old 05-11-2003, 10:56 PM   #22 (permalink)
Eccentric insomniac
 
Slims's Avatar
 
Location: North Carolina
I dont think you can really call this a design flaw. Most 1911 style pistols can't be unloaded without the thumb safety being disengaged. I don't know what this bryco thing is, but the 1911 type pistols are very popular.

The baby sitter should have just put the gun back, or set it up somewhere instead of trying to unload it. Esp. if he does not know how to do so.

He should have also not been pointing it at the kid.

Many similar lawsuits have been 'shot down' in court. This one probably solely because of some jury issue, or an incompetent defense, rather than real substance.
__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence
Slims is offline  
Old 05-11-2003, 11:41 PM   #23 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
I admit I don't know a whole lot about guns and unloading and all the rest. I realize the gun has a slight design flaw, but it was a known flaw and hardly something they should be held liable for. Couple things: 1) the gun shouldn't have been anywhere near the child in the first place and 2) the babysitter shouldn't have just started unloading the gun if he wasn't sure what he was doing and he definitely shouldn't have been point it in the direction of someone when he did it.

Manufacturer's are responsible to provide a safe product to their consumers. They are not responsible for their consumers using their product in an unsafe way. Is the line a bit blurry? Sure. But it was clearly the action of the babysitter that caused the accident and not a random misfire of the gun.

At least, that's just me.
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 03:15 AM   #24 (permalink)
Delicious
 
Reese's Avatar
 
The gun should have been locked in a safe or had a trigger lock - parents fault 50%
The gun should should not have been handled or tried to be unloaded by an unskilled users. - babysitters fault 40%
The gun should have been able to be unloaded while safety is on. - Manufacturers fault 10%

I think a slightly different method of gun protection is to put maybe 1, maybe 2 blank shells in the gun before the actualy bullets. If a kid picked up the gun and pulled the trigger it would scare him shitless but there would be no harm done, and in case you actually need to use the gun its easy to fire off a round to get rid of the blank. Just a random thought.
__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

Last edited by Reese; 05-12-2003 at 03:22 AM..
Reese is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 04:19 AM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Daval's Avatar
 
Location: The True North Strong and Free!
Quote:
Originally posted by ARTelevision
dimbulb, understood.

My issue is with excessive over-the-top cash awards that juries have a tendency to mandate. It's a give-away-someone-else's-money mentality. It's a once-in-a-lifetime power rush that people get and it hurts legitimate businesses, and incites people to sue in a win-the-lottery type crapshoot.
In the name of "justice" it's just plain unsavory.

And this is the major flaw with the US justice system. People can sue for just about any frivolous claim that they can possibly think of with a reasonable chance of winning. In other western countries these types of cases would not even make it to the dockets.
__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill
Daval is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 07:36 AM   #26 (permalink)
"Officer, I was in fear for my life"
 
hrdwareguy's Avatar
 
Location: Oklahoma City
Just the facts

begin rant

OK, first off, this is just stupid. As someone mentioned earlier, this is like suing a car manufacturer when you get in an accident. The manufacturer is responsible for making a safe product, not enforcing safe use of the product. (I'll take issue with the whole, "It's a bad design that it has to be in fire to unload in a bit").

After doing some more digging, here is what I found.

The gun that this kid was shot with was a .38 caliber revolver. Some revolvers have a bulit in safety switch, such as Smith & Weson. Others don't, only some rugers have a safety switch. So in total it's about a 50/50 split. The bigest safety on a revolver is your finger but that's another story. The only other "safety" is if the gun is a double action, you will know you are pulling the trigger when doing so...takes quite a bit of pull as compared to if the hammer is cocked.

According to an article on the net, the "safety" this gun has is a trigger lock. A small device that fits around the trigger and trigger guard and locks in place so you don't have access to the trigger. Yes, the trigger lock can prevent you from opening the chamber to unload the gun. Poor design flaw...hell no. Even aftermarket trigger locks do this. This being said, in order to unload the gun, the babysitter had to REMOVE THE TRIGGER LOCK, a device in place so the gun can not be fired. Why did he feel he needed to unload the gun when there was a trigger lock in place? And why did he feel the need to unload the gun in the first place instead of just putting it out of the kids reach?

Here is the breakdown of the award the jury set:
Manufacturer - 10%
Distributer - 30%
Parents - 30%
Babysitter - 20%

I know this only adds up to 90% but this is what the article said. If you haven't been able to guess, I don't think the manufacturer should have to pay anything. The distributer in this case is a pawn shop where the parents bought the gun. I don't think the shop should have to pay anything either. It's a pawn shop for crying out loud. Like the people here know the workings of everything in the store or something. The guy that sold it to them was probably using the gun lock as a selling point.

The parents should pay nothing. Except for maybe putting their kids through gun safety classes since they have guns in the house. And, Yes, I have a child and loaded guns in my house. When my son gets old enough he will learn gun safety and how to handle them. He will also learn they are not toys and not to play with them.

The babysitter should pay everything, but 50.9 million dollars seems a bit excessive. This is the guy that used bad judgement while caring for 2 children. He should not have been trying to unload the gun. What was he going to do, give it back to the kids to play with after he got it unloaded? Put it up out of their reach or something.

I think you should be required to take a gun class and get a purchasing liscense before you are allowed to buy a gun. It would not have helped in this case but it could then be argued that a non-trained person was in operation of a gun he had no businees trying to unload.

If anyone can find more information about this gun, post it in this thread so we can take a look at it.

end rant
__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today
hrdwareguy is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 07:44 AM   #27 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Daval's Avatar
 
Location: The True North Strong and Free!
Thankfully we rarely see stories like htis in Canada. I support gun control. We have much much less violent crime because of it.
__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill
Daval is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 07:45 AM   #28 (permalink)
Oracle & Apollyon
 
Prophecy's Avatar
 
Location: Limbus Patrum
Quote:
Originally posted by Snoogans
What kind of dumbass leaves a loaded gun at home with the kids and babysitter?
Good question, but what kind of dumbass unloads a gun pointed at someone? plus having to turn the safety off to unload the gun is poor design.

Quote:
Originally posted by nefarious
i really do hope they pass that law protecting gun makers.

if someone rams a car into yours and you get paralyzed, do you sue the car maker? NO!

it's just a way to try to make some money.. i think

There is a bill in congress about this right now, if it goes anywhere or not....

On a side note, Congress is supposed to be passing a law that caps awards give to people who sue doctors when patients die or get injured in a direct result to a doctors decision
__________________
La Disciplina Č La Mia Spada,
La Fede Č Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

Last edited by Prophecy; 05-12-2003 at 07:52 AM..
Prophecy is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 08:52 AM   #29 (permalink)
another passenger
 
cdwonderful's Avatar
 
Location: Youngstown, Ohio
Stupid, sick and wrong
__________________
Never try to teach a pig to whistle
it wastes your time,
and annoys the pig.....
cdwonderful is offline  
 

Tags
boy, gun, liable, maker, shooting

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:01 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360