|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
A Common Sense Judge
A 13 year-old kid in Florida took a gun to school and killed his teacher. The teacher’s widow sued the gun manufacturer and won an award of $1.2 million. Now a judge in West Palm Beach, Florida has thrown that ruling out. The jury determined that the gun was not defective. If it wasn’t defective, where is the gun maker’s liability? A manufacturer cannot be held liable for thier product performing exactly as it was designed to perform. The manufacturer of a given product cannot be held liable for the actions, morals, errors, or intentions of a consumer/end user.
It’s nice to see common sense instead of activism from the bench once in a while. Mike
__________________
_____ 1979 300 SD 350,000 miles _____ 1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy _____ 1985 300TD 270,000 miles _____ 1994 E320 not my favorite, but the wife wanted it www.myspace.com/mikemover www.myspace.com/openskystudio www.myspace.com/speedxband www.myspace.com/openskyseparators www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
It should not have gotten to the judge.. what was wrong with those people in the jury box in the first place ?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Are you saying if the gun had NOT gone off she would have gotten $1.2 million.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
" Brazill stole the gun from a dresser drawer at his grandfather's house.
" While this is not exactly like some of the other suits which are concealed attempts to put gun manufacturers out of business because some hate all guns no matter what their use... It still is hard to hold a shop responsible for a gun which is stolen from a persons house... Seems that the suit should have been against the grandfather for failure to secure the weapon... |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Have you ever seen one of these guns? We used to see it in school a lot before we put in metal detectors. It's such a piece of junk I'm surprised it was even allowed to be sold in the US.
Remember this was a civil case, hence the burden of proof is not held to as high a standard as in a criminal case. I caught a bit of this on Court TV. The gun manufacturer was only held 5% liable. In a sense, it was a small victory for the gun manufacturers. The jury's decision affirms our collective wisdom that it's not the gun which kills, it's the person who pulls the trigger. Nonetheless, the jury's decision also reflects that little bit of doubt in the back of our minds that if we could only enforce the laws we have, this would not have happened. Kuan |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
John Shellenberg 1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Kuan, I do agree that people should only be killed with high quality weapons...shooting someone with a piece of junk is only adding insult to injury...
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
In a jursidiction with Joint and Several Liability . . . even if the gun maker was only .000001% at fault, it (or it's insurance company) would have to pay 100% of any award and then get a refund from grandpa, the kid, the school, etc.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
MTI, are most jurisdictions that way ?
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Since laws change all the time, I'm not sure if this is still current, but numerous state legislatures and courts have abolished joint and several liability in certain circumstances.
31 states have modified it in some way. 13 have abolished it in many circumstances for both economic and non-economic damages. Four states, California, Florida, Ohio (if the Plaintiff is contributorily negligent) and Oregon have adopted reforms much like these. Others have abolished it if a defendant's fault falls below a certain threshold. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Kuan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"The jury's decision affirms our collective wisdom that it's not the gun which kills, it's the person who pulls the trigger.".... by Kuan
Kuan, I am not sure how this statement conforms to my notion of a business or person not being held responsible for something which he has NO ability to stop... except to not sell the gun.. but if the product does function as it was supposed to physically then the blame should be entirely on the person who takes the action.. I was saying the grandfather, due to lack of effective control of the gun should be sued while the gun manufacturer or seller should not be included AT ALL due to their lack of ability to control the grandfather's or the boy's actions. That way the judge would not have to remove those people after a jury ruled them (whatever percent) co liable.... Of course, like another thread on this forum , the boy might have used a machete if the gun was not available... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Guns don't kill
Bullets do!
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
It is really hard to throw a bullet hard enough to kill someone.. so I think we can "round" off the description to " guns ".....
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Kuan |
Bookmarks |
|
|