Ok, I support it now
I’ve never been particularly supportive on the gun makers liability protection bill. But I am now:
Lawyers representing a former Wichita boy who suffered brain damage in 1998 when another boy shot him said Wednesday that they had reached a landmark settlement with the gunmaker, Smith & Wesson.
“The settlement marks the first time a gun manufacturer has paid to settle a claim for failing to childproof a gun,” said a statement by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, a public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C.
Smith & Wesson said in a statement that “there was no deficiency with this firearm.”
Then why the flying fuck did you settle? S&W sells out again. The situation:
Lawyers for the Ryan family contend that the shooting was an accident and would not have occurred if the Smith & Wesson Model 915 9 mm pistol had been designed differently [for example, if it shot nerf balls – ed.]. They said they couldn’t disclose the settlement amount.
According to the lawyers, Royce, then 8, was accidentally shot in the face on April 15, 1998, while playing with friends. The lawyers say that 15-year-old Jared McMunn took the semiautomatic pistol from his parents’ dresser. Thinking it was unloaded, he pulled the trigger, the lawyers said. The gun fired a round left in the chamber, hitting Royce below his left eye.
The gun functioned exactly as designed. There was no flaw and nothing S&W did caused this to happen. What caused this to happen the parents of Jared McMunn were grossly negligent. S&W should not have settled. They should have fought and responded with a counter suit.
Alphie has more.
May 2nd, 2005 at 8:59 am
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.
May 2nd, 2005 at 9:36 am
Danegeld.
May 2nd, 2005 at 10:09 am
If you read to the bottom of the story, you’ll find at least the official reason why they settled:
Sounds plausible enough to me. Nuisance suits are often cheaper to pay off than to litigate.
May 2nd, 2005 at 10:19 am
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.
May 2nd, 2005 at 11:53 am
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?
May 2nd, 2005 at 12:10 pm
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.
May 2nd, 2005 at 12:27 pm
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 $$$, then why shouldn’t every other lawyer with time on his hands be signing up clients and going for it?
May 2nd, 2005 at 12:33 pm
This is death by a thousand cuts. Unless the liabilty protection bill is passed, gunmakers will continue to be sued, their insurance companies will pay out and the cost will be passed on to gun buyers, many of whom will be priced out of the market.
May 2nd, 2005 at 12:50 pm
I think everyone is assuming there is a big $$$ 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.
May 4th, 2005 at 1:02 am
ope that’s because you think every manufacturer should enjoy some respite from junk lawsuits!
May 4th, 2005 at 8:09 am
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.)