A Common Sense Judge - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

leathermang · #16 01-29-2003, 03:06 PM

There is just something wrong with holding someone responsible AT ALL for something they can not control (except by not producing and selling their product).....
And you can see, if it is a jurisdiction with joint and several liablility they will be the ones that pay the whole thing....
There is supposed to be a relationship between being able to stop something and being held responsible for it...
So I am saying it should not have been left up to the judge to correct this... the jury should have found the manufacturer NOT liable at all....

Kuan · #17 01-29-2003, 03:15 PM

Well, we don't know what transpired behind the doors of the jury deliberation room. There are many reasons why the manufacturer could be liable. Simply not being able to control who purchases the weapon may not be one of the The judge probably gave them proper instruction and it's up to the jury to interpret the judge's instruction. Now if they assigned liability improperly, then it is the judge's responsibility to correct the decision.

We seldom hear anything but the verdicts in such cases. More often than not, the media puts a spin on it in order to make it more than what it really is. I don't know how the jury came to conclude that the manufacturer was partially to blame, but I'm sure the information is publicly available.

Kuan

mikemover · #18 01-30-2003, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Anderson
Are you saying if the gun had NOT gone off she would have gotten $1.2 million.

I'm saying the frivolous suit against the manufacturer should never have existed in the first place!

If someone is killed in a car accident that happened when someone in a Camry ran a red light, should the victim's family be able to sue Toyota? How about the dealer that sold them the Toyota? How about the manufacturer of the red light? How about the city/county/state that built the road and installed the red light? Of course not! Let the blame lie where the blame IS! We MUST start holding PEOPLE responsible for their own actions.

Every day, I'm more and more convinced that trial lawyers are the absolute scum of the planet.

Mike

Kuan · #19 01-30-2003, 11:36 AM

Before we jump to conclusions, what was the wording of the suit, and what was the wording of the decision? Remember this is a civil case, not criminal. It's seemingly obvious to us that you can't be responsible for how someone uses your product after you've sold it, but there may have been other factors at play here.

Kuan

leathermang · #20 01-30-2003, 11:54 AM

Kuan, that 'seamingly obvious' point is lost on the people who are against guns existing... this is not the only suit against a manufacturer..

I can understand a gun shop being included if they did not follow the rules having to do with who got the gun from them...

But, except for poor workmanship, the manufacturer should not have been included period.

Many suits have been filed with the backdoor motive to try to run manufacturers out of business... and when they get a stupid jury it muddies the water...

It does not matter that it was civil court. If you can not control something you should not be made to defend yourself in court win or lose.. you have already lost being there and paying lawyers...

#21 01-30-2003, 11:58 AM

Okay, see if you can do this. Read each line aloud
without making any
mistakes. If you make a mistake you MUST start over or
it won't work.

This is this cat
This is is cat
This is how cat
This is to cat
This is keep cat
This is a cat
This is dumbass cat
This is busy cat
This is for cat
This is forty cat
This is seconds cat

Now go back and read the THIRD word in each line from
the top...

mikemover · #22 01-30-2003, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PaulC
An attorney is not going to represent a plaintiff in a case that would require a great deal of time and expense in preparation and presentation unless one of the defendants has deep pockets, thus, drag in the gun manufacturer.

Exactly...Which is why I'm more and more convinced that the majority of trial lawyers are scum, as I said before.

Mike

#23 01-30-2003, 12:18 PM

IMO its trial lawyers that keep manufactures from building dangerous devices. Like all other professions you have some bottom feeders. Remember it’s not lawyers rendering these verdicts, its juries of our peers.

mikemover · #24 01-30-2003, 12:21 PM

Very good point...but this stuff just should never even pass thru the doors of a courtroom in the first place.

If I were a lawyer and someone came into my office with such a case, I would immediately show them the door, and hope it hits them on their a$$ on the way out.

Mike

Kuan · #25 01-30-2003, 12:27 PM

Well, it passed through the same judge through every stage of the trial (presumably). So there was probably enough evidence to give it a listen. People ask for all kinds of things to be admitted into evidence all the time. This includes things which often don't even support the position argued. I guess we should be happy that the system actually did its job.

Kuan

mikemover · #26 01-30-2003, 12:42 PM

I'm VERY happy that it was thrown out.

I'm NOT happy that probably thousands of tax dollars were spent on even HEARING the case, jury members' time was wasted, most if not all of them probably lost income by being there, and thousands were probably spent by the gun manufacturer to defend itself against NOTHING.

The losing plaintiff in such cases should have to pay 100% of the defendant's expenses. That would put an end to a lot of this ****e.

Mike

Kuan · #27 01-30-2003, 12:47 PM

Well how else can we guarantee due process then? The judge probably looked at it and chuckled, but maybe he was bound by law to allow the case to go on.

Kuan

#28 01-30-2003, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikemover

The losing plaintiff in such cases should have to pay 100% of the defendant's expenses. That would put an end to a lot of this ****e.

Mike

100% agreement on that Mike.