Gun Maker Liable in Shooting

[Timber Loftis]

Make sure you read the whole article before replying. This case was, IMO, fairly decided - the jury found a DESIGN DEFECT. This case shows exactly why we do not need current NRA-sponsored legislation barring cases against gun manufacturers. The law is clear on products liability, and it can be fairly applied, and we don't need more laws to cover things that the law already covers. Even with the defect, you'll note, the gun makers were only 35% liable. The babysitter was partially liable, and the parents who bought the gun were partially liable (meaning they won't cover their % of liability on behalf of their son). Seems like reasonably apportioned causation percentages to me - even if not exactly how *I* would have parsed it out.


Today's NY Times:
______________________________
Gun Maker Found Liable in Shooting Accident
By FOX BUTTERFIELD

An Oakland jury has found a California gun maker, its designer and its main distributor partly liable in an accidental shooting that left a 7-year-old boy a quadriplegic.

The jury's verdict, on Monday in Alameda County Superior Court, is considered highly unusual because gun manufacturers have successfully argued for years that guns are legal products and that when they injure or kill someone they are performing exactly as intended.


The jury found that Bryco Arms, the maker of the .38-caliber semiautomatic used in the shooting; Bruce Jennings, the gun's designer and the company's founder; and the company's main distributor, B. L. Jennings Inc. 35 percent liable for the injury to the boy, Brandon Maxfield, who was shot in the chin by a baby sitter in 1994.

In addition, the jury found two other gun distributors that shipped the gun and the pawnshop in Willits, Calif., where it was bought 13 percent liable.

The jury assessed the remaining responsibility to Larry Moreford, the 20-year-old baby sitter who accidentally pulled the trigger while trying to unload the gun, and to Brandon Maxfield's parents, who had bought it.

The jury began a separate phase of the trial yesterday to determine the amount of damages, said Victoria Ni, a staff lawyer with Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, a public interest law firm that had been advising Brandon, who is now 16 and must use a wheelchair.

Whatever damages the jury determines, Ms. Ni said, could be nullified by a bill now in Congress that would grant the gun industry nearly complete immunity against such lawsuits. The bill, which passed the House earlier this month, is expected to be taken up in the Senate after the Easter recess. The bill, sponsored by the National Rifle Association and the gun industry, has 52 co-sponsors in the Senate, enough to pass.

In Brandon's case, Ms. Ni said, the crucial issue was that the .38-caliber Bryco semiautomatic was designed in such a way that it could be unloaded only when the safety was turned to the "off" position.

"You have to disengage the safety and put the gun in a dangerous position to unload it," Ms. Ni said. "That is a defect in the design."

During testimony, it was shown that Mr. Jennings had changed the design of the gun to make it operate that way.

Bryco Arms makes what are commonly referred to as Saturday night specials, inexpensive handguns with features that would put them on a list of guns prohibited from being imported to the United States. Mike Hewitt, the lawyer for Bryco and Mr. Jennings, did not return calls seeking comment.

Dennis Henigan, the legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group, said the jury's finding exposed dangers in the design of the gun that a responsible manufacturer should have foreseen, as could happen with other consumer products.

At the time of the shooting, according to testimony, Mr. Moreford was baby-sitting for Brandon when they heard a fight outside the house. A cousin of Brandon, who was also in the house, then pulled out a gun that belonged to Brandon's parents. Mr. Moreford took it away and tried to unload the gun, but to do so he had to turn off the safety.

In the process, he accidentally pulled the trigger and shot Brandon, who was across the room.

[Larry_OHF]

Very interesting case. I can see why the maker of the weopon is to be liable for his part. To take out the bullets...you have to turn the safetly off that allows for the gun to fire! What a stupid concept! Also, for the parents...I can see their % of the blame. They owned a stupid, cheap gun in my opinion, as well as letting the kid know where it was located. That kid that went for the gun was wanting to use it due to a fight outside? Was it a fight that he needed to be involved in?

Finally...I guess I feel sorry for the babysitter that tried to take control of the situation, as he had recovered the gun from the angry/frightened one...then tried to disarm it by taking the bullets out, not knowing what a piece of crap the gun was! Still...he should have known better than to have the gun facing any direction except down at the ground if he knew bullets were inside.

I think it would be a good idea to ban pawn shops from carrying/reselling guns. If I ever buy a gun...I am going to do it the right way with all the paperwork and registry stuff...as well as take a gun safety course from the local police dept. Also...like buying a new digital camera...I am going to look at all the pluses and minuses of several guns and not buy a cheap-ass one that has to be armed before the bullets can be safely removed!

[WillowIX]

I agree with your opening statement Timber. I too fell that the verdict is fair. Since the manufacturer made the changes described in the article he/they should be liable. But I do not fully understand why the pawn shop is liable. The only reason I can think of is selling a defect (dangerous) product.

[Rokenn]

A very sensible ruling. Sounds to me like the jury got it nearly right. Personally I would have absolved the baby-sitter of any liability as he was trying to do the right thing.

[ 04-23-2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by WillowIX: I agree with your opening statement Timber. I too fell that the verdict is fair. Since the manufacturer made the changes described in the article he/they should be liable. But I do not fully understand why the pawn shop is liable. The only reason I can think of is selling a defect (dangerous) product.

First, two other distributors and the pawn shop were 13% liable - we don't know how this splits up.

Second, normally, all merchants in the chain of sale are liable in a defective product case. If you bought your exploding Coke bottle at Wal-Mart, both companies are liable, as well as bottlers, distributors, you get the picture. The theory is that you, the claimant, can go to any of them for redress, and they can sue each other and fight over it amongst themselves.

Failure to inspect a product for defects can also come into play, especially in a case such as this where there is an obvious design flaw. If the defective product is obviously defective such that a reasonable store would notice, the store *should* notice.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: First, two other distributors and the pawn shop were 13% liable - we don't know how this splits up. Second, normally, all merchants in the chain of sale are liable in a defective product case. If you bought your exploding Coke bottle at Wal-Mart, both companies are liable, as well as bottlers, distributors, you get the picture. The theory is that you, the claimant, can go to any of them for redress, and they can sue each other and fight over it amongst themselves. Failure to inspect a product for defects can also come into play, especially in a case such as this where there is an obvious design flaw. If the defective product is obviously defective such that a reasonable store would notice, the store *should* notice.

Thank you for the explanation Timber. [img]smile.gif[/img] I am the first to admit that my knowledge about American law is nonexistent at best. Since you are obviously in here I have to ask this. Would this have gone to court if the gun was not modified by the manufacturer?

[Timber Loftis]

The design defect is a defect in design whether originally designed that way or later changed to be that way. If the gun had been changed/modified by someone later in the chain of supply, that person would be on the hook. If the local Wal-Mart had no reason to know of the design flaw (e.g. our "rogue gun modifier") they may be on the hook (vis-a-vis the consumer) but could seek complete recovery from the responsible party.

If there was no design defect, the case likely would not have survived long. Many are currently being brought and failing for this very reason.

Note that the fact a gun is designed to shoot people is NOT a "design defect." It is exactly what the gun is designed to do, and the consumer is completely aware of it.

[Animal]

I don't know if I agree with this one exactly. Although each party should be held accountable, I bring up one question:

Why was the weapon so easily accesible for children?

I'm assuming the cousin was of similiar age to Brandon, and I don't know ALL the facts but being able to just "pull out" a gun, does bring up some concerns about safety and the possible negligence on the part of the parents for overlooking that safety?

[StigTC]

Not sure how it works in the US, but back here in Denmark all weapons and ammo must be kept in a locked metal closet designed for the purpose of holding weapons. Maybe it's a law like that you americans need, since a banning of hand weapons isn't even close to happeneing.