Comments on: Ok, I support it now

By: markm

markm — Wed, 04 May 2005 12:09:21 +0000

countertop: Yes, they probably paid something between $50,000 and $100,000. Which probably gives the plaintiffs’ lawyer $15 to $30,000 plus expenses, for probably under 40 hours work. That’s a pretty good hourly rate for most lawyers.

But what’s most likely to kill off the gunmakers is neither the settlements nor the occasional huge award by a runaway jury, but rather it’s the legal fees they’ll have to pay to take thousands of bogus cases to court. (Yes, I know that the direct payer of both fees and settlements is the insurance company – but they’ll raise their rates to get it back from the insured.)

By: Kirk Parker

Kirk Parker — Wed, 04 May 2005 05:02:54 +0000

I�ve never been particularly supportive on the gun makers liability protection bill…

ope that’s because you think every manufacturer should enjoy some respite from junk lawsuits!

By: countertop

countertop — Mon, 02 May 2005 16:50:03 +0000

I think everyone is assuming there is a big $$$ amount attached to this settlement. It may very well be that they settled this for 100k or some othe rpidly amount that barely covers the time and energy of the attorneys invovled for the plaintiffs but at least gives the Brady’s some PR to spin.

My guess is that the gun banners were in a position that they HAD to settle or face a loss. S&Ws insurers didn’t want to pay to go through trial when they could get out much cheaper without the trial. Hence the settlement.

Sadly, S&W probably has 0% input into the decision.

By: Yosemite Sam

Yosemite Sam — Mon, 02 May 2005 16:33:33 +0000

This is death by a thousand cuts. Unless the liabilty protection bill is passed, gunmakers will continue to be sued, their insurance companies will pay out and the cost will be passed on to gun buyers, many of whom will be priced out of the market.

By: markm

markm — Mon, 02 May 2005 16:27:02 +0000

Xlrq: Legally, a settlement is no precedent. Practically, it’s like blood in the water at a shark convention. If one bogus lawsuit could get big $$$, then why shouldn’t every other lawyer with time on his hands be signing up clients and going for it?

By: Manish

Manish — Mon, 02 May 2005 16:10:51 +0000

Blake…with regards to McD’s, they had about 700 reported cases BEFORE Stella Liebecks. Here’s more on that case from the Wall Street Journal.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 02 May 2005 15:53:43 +0000

Uncle: strictly speaking, I doubt it sets any precedent at all, i.e., the next moron to sue them under this theory will not be able to use this case against them, and if too many morons do try, at some point they’ll fight instead. The only “precedent” it sets, loosely speaking, is an unfortunate reality of doing business generally for a long time.

Blake: You’re remembering the McDs case completely backwards. They didn’t “pay that woman” (Stella Liebeck), she sued them and won. They did pay her an undisclosed about to settle the case rather than fight it on appeal, but what are all these other subsequent suits you are talking about? Have any of them gone anywhere?

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Mon, 02 May 2005 14:19:55 +0000

I read why they settled but doesn’t mean I have to like it. In terms of precedent, it’s huge. When I asked ‘why the flying fuck’, it was in reference to it not being a good enough reason and not because I didn’t know. SHould have been more clear.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 02 May 2005 14:09:35 +0000

If you read to the bottom of the story, you’ll find at least the official reason why they settled:

But [Ann] Makkiya, the Smith & Wesson corporate counsel, said the blame has been misplaced.

“It is the responsibility and legal obligation of every handgun owner to safely store and secure a firearm,” she said in the statement.

“This handgun was sold with a lock that would have prevented this shooting, if used.”

Regarding the settlement, she said in the statement, “Our insurance carrier made a business decision to settle this lawsuit.” The insurer paid the settlement.

“While we respect and understand the insurance carrier’s motive for making this decision, it is not an indication that there was any problem with this firearm.”

Sounds plausible enough to me. Nuisance suits are often cheaper to pay off than to litigate.

By: Thibodeaux

Thibodeaux — Mon, 02 May 2005 13:36:47 +0000

Danegeld.

By: Blake

Blake — Mon, 02 May 2005 12:59:30 +0000

This will open up the floodgates now. Once you pay somebody off, everybody comes out of the woodwork to file a claim.

It’s almost like when McDonalds paid the woman who spilled coffee on herself. Once they did that, everybody started suing.

Smooth move, S&W…smooth move.