Author Topic: FA loses law suit  (Read 4333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nathan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Gender: Male
FA loses law suit
« on: June 06, 2007, 04:26:26 PM »

Hi folks.  I haven't posted here in awhile, but saw this online and thought I'd share it.  Hoping they have a shot at appeals.
Nathan-

An Ohio jury ruled against a prestigious Wyoming gun manufacturer this week and awarded damages to an Ohio man who lost his right leg in a firearm accident in Albany County four years ago.

Robert Taylor of Adamsville, Ohio, was awarded $600,000 in damages Thursday against Star Valley gun manufacturer Freedom Arms Inc. following a jury trial, said Taylor's lead counsel, Kent Spence of Jackson.

The jury found unanimously that there was a defect in the design of the product, Spence said in a phone interview. He said the jury was also unanimous in determining the defect in the design was the "proximate cause" of the injury to Taylor.

"We were very pleased with the verdict, since (Freedom Arms) has known since before the gun was ever produced in 1983 that it could draw fire and snap fire," Spence said.

"They claimed that a warning in the manual was enough ... but as I told the jury, 'Don't you think a man ought to be safe to take his duster off and not lose his leg?'" he said. "The message from this jury was fix the gun and make it safe."

Freedom Arms President Robert Baker said Friday he was disappointed in the verdict. He said company officials will consult with attorneys and "review our options" before deciding whether to appeal.

The verdict by the eight-member jury came after a three-week trial in Muskingum County, Ohio.

The lawsuit initially sought $10 million in damages from Freedom Arms, Sportsmans One Stop Inc. of Zanesville, Ohio, and five unknown John Doe defendants. The complaint against Sportsmans One Stop and the John Does was later dropped.

Baker said the jury assigned 50 percent of the responsibility for the accident to Taylor, making the actual award against the company $300,000.

"These guns are just like any other guns: When used properly they work just fine, and if they're not used properly, they're a hazard," Baker said. "This is just another wake-up call for people (in regard to) any product you're using, whether it be a firearm, automobile or tool or whatever ... The individual has a responsibility to learn how to use it properly."

Unsafe firing pin

Taylor alleged in his lawsuit that the .454 caliber revolver produced by Freedom Arms is "defective and unreasonably dangerous" because it allows the firing pin to make contact with the primer cartridge before the firearm is fully set to be fired.

As a result, a user of the firearm can "inadvertently discharge" the gun even though the hammer is not pulled back, according to the plaintiff's complaint.

The lawsuit alleged the Model 83 five-shot revolver was defective because it failed to conform to express representations by the company that the firearm was one of the "world's finest" handguns specifically designed to give any user safety, top quality and dependability.

The complaint said the company also failed to warn of the dangers associated with using the gun.

The complaint said on Sept. 9, 2003, Taylor was horseback riding with friends near Rock River when the accident occurred.

While riding, Taylor was carrying the Freedom Arms .454 caliber revolver in a holster on his right thigh. The complaint said Taylor was wearing a heavy leather coat and returned to his camping trailer when it started to rain.

The complaint said while Taylor was taking off his coat in the trailer, a part of the coat caught the hammer of the gun, causing it to discharge a bullet into his lower right leg. "It blew a 5- by 8-inch hole out of the front side of his leg," Spence said.

Friends rushed Taylor to the hospital in Laramie for emergency medical treatment. He was later transferred to Fort Collins, Colo., where his right leg was amputated just below the knee.

The lawsuit sought remuneration for hospital, medical and other expenses, lost wages, impairment of his future earning capacity, and the loss of enjoyment of life.

Manual safety

Spence said experts for the plaintiff said all revolvers should be designed with transfer bars to ensure that the only way to discharge the weapon is by "fully cocking the hammer and pulling the trigger."

Baker said the company sells "quite a few" of the Model 38 handguns. He said the gun has a "manual" safety and the use of the gun is outlined in the manual.

"It's very effective, and it doesn't fail," Baker said. "Because these guns are used in such harsh conditions and dangerous conditions, we go for something that is as close to absolutely reliable as you can get."

But Spence called on the company -- and several others producing revolvers with "the same defect" -- to recall and stop producing "these defective guns."
“Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” Mark Twain

Offline Crazy Horse

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2007, 05:08:36 PM »
You know not all lawyers are bad! It just that 99% of them make the rest look bad! :>)... Oh stuff like this just burns my *** up! I hope Freedom arms will not change a thing in their design! I would be surprised if it happened  "exactly" like he is telling.

Online Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26945
  • Gender: Male
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2007, 05:24:26 PM »
Makes no more sense than it did when Ruger lost a similar suit. Ruger made a major redesign of their guns as a result. I suspect FA will have no choice but to do the same.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline nathan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Gender: Male
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2007, 06:25:26 PM »
Agreed..  Financially it wouldn't make sense for them not to change, as there is now precedence set.  It really irks me that someone w/ good enough taste to own a FA would be low-life enough to go after them for HIS mistake.  I'm sure glad I got my "old model" 83 already.
“Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” Mark Twain

Offline SJPrice

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 192
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2007, 10:16:43 AM »
How many folks have posted on the web to declare that they ignore the part in the manual that says empty chamber under the hammer and they carry five.  HEY FOLKS THIS SHOULD BE YOUR WAKE UP CALL.  Read and follow the safety precautions in the manual. 

Offline tuckerdog1

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2007, 12:10:34 PM »
One of those characters, that even though the warning says DON'T USE HAIR DRYER IN THE SHOWER, he would, and then sue. Really sorry ya got injured, but it's YOUR fault.

Not a lawyer ( proud to say ), but I'd suspect FA will look real hard at an appeal. There is so much more than the judgment looming. They would almost be forced to redesign. If they didn't, the next victim of his own stupidity would likely bankrupt them. Then there will the required recall of all model 83 designed guns already out there. A mighty costly problem to deal with.

I wish them luck.

Tuckerdog1
Never fry bacon in the nude. Trust me...

Offline Crazy Horse

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2007, 01:57:33 PM »
If he would have had the gun on the safety cock ( first click when the hammer comes back about a 1/4") the gun would not have fired. Heck for all we know he was quick drawing the thing.  I find it real hard to believe that dragging a coat across the hammer made it fire even if the hammer was in the down position. Sounds like BS to me!

Offline WL44

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2007, 12:31:03 AM »
Sounds strange to me too and yes the load 4 and 1 empty is in the manual.

Some guys would like to sue God when horses throw them or when they trip over their own feet in the dirt.

I hope FA make all buyers sign a waiver or something and don't change the gun.

Offline Broom Rider

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 256
  • Gender: Female
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2007, 03:41:20 PM »
I'm sorry to see such a decision handed down from an obviously feel good liberal jury with little knowledge of firearms. The guy obviously didn't read the manual and had a live round the hammer. I don't see how a coat would have drawn the hammer but it's a moot point.
Lynnie, NRA Life Member

Offline kennisondan

  • Trade Count: (7)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2007, 06:05:59 PM »
First, as an attorney I will surmise there were a bunch of lies told..second, the easiest thing to do is encourage or force people to take a test or training to alert them to ward off the specter of foreseeable misuse..that is what four wheeler companies do... take the course for a few hours and get a good pkg of accessories that advertise the gun company... then you have taken some reasonable steps to educate and warn over and above what the manual says... there are many people that never read directions...or manuals ... and since we know it is so we need to guard against their idiocy in the eyes of the law...not that I agree ...
that is just the easiest answer I see..
I bought a four wheeler and went to the cours to get the free stuff that saved me good bucks and they are now covered.. they even taught me what they new I would not read ..
JMLO
dk
ps I am only a lawyer on certain days and times...
dk

Offline Dusty Miller

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
  • Gender: Male
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2007, 06:09:11 PM »
Why didn't he sue the company that made that "defective" leather coat?
When seconds mean life or death, the police are only minutes away!

Offline Ken ONeill

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Gender: Male
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2007, 10:04:26 PM »
Why didn't he sue the company that made that "defective" leather coat?
Probably because it was likely made in China...or Bangladesh...or Mexico...or Vietnam....

Offline tecrsq

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2007, 03:55:09 PM »
Truly sad in the present day that people are not held accountable for their own actions.

The guy should have simply read and followed the instructions, plain and simple.

You can neither legislate morality nor common sense and in the end a stand up company with an impeccable and robust product suffers the rath.

I only hope Mr. Baker appeals and takes it as far as possible.

The jury is pathetic as well as the Buckeye who failed to read the instructions and common sense practices that have been followed for over the last century.

TecRsq
North Gawga
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue!

Offline Questor

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2007, 03:40:37 PM »
If it's any comfort to FA, gimpy won't be enjoying his $600K minus 40% for taxes, and minus about another 40% for frivolous purchases and minus 30% for legal fees. (Yes, I know that's more than 100%, but that's the way these things work.)  Then he's on his own for on-going medical care, unemployment, and an early death due to a latent aneurysm initiated and aggravated by persistent feelings of regret over having squandered his fortune and then inflicting further financial duress upon himself through bad judgment.

A few years ago some guy sued, I think, beartooth bullets, for making a "defective" lion hunting bullet because it failed to stop a charging lion. The guy who got mauled and sued was using the right kind of bullet, but clearly had unrealistic expectations of what a bullet can do.

By the way, GB, why is bullseye considered a misspelling on this forum?
Safety first

Online Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26945
  • Gender: Male
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2007, 04:59:23 PM »
Quote
By the way, GB, why is bullseye considered a misspelling on this forum?

How should I know, I don't use the silly spell checker cuz it has no clue how to spell the words I use regularly. Ask Matt.  :o


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline shilo

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 244
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2007, 07:32:54 AM »
I'd say it was the guys own fault because he was carrying the gun with a live round under the hammer. It's too bad people don't accept the consequences of their actions. It's always someone elses fault. Horseback riding with a single action with a round under the hammer - STUPID.

Offline corbanzo

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2405
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2007, 06:33:26 PM »
So what about all the other guns that were produced in the past?  Can I sue S&W about a 29-2 that is pre transfer bar?  There is no way I'm going to stop carrying that gun.  I still havent shot myself with it, and I've been carrying it since it first got put in my hands years ago at 14. 
"At least with a gun that big, if you miss and hit the rocks in front of him it'll stone him to death..."

Offline Wiking

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 148
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2007, 08:14:31 AM »
If you crawl around on a horseback or whatever, with a gun as powerful as a .454, and you don't do EXACTLY as the safety instructions indicate... then there is only one man to blame: and that's you!! Too bad he lost his leg though.

A guy in my club, shot himself in the knee with a .22! Why?? Spend the whole night gettin' plastered at his wifes 50th birthday. Ain't nobody else to blame but him!

Offline CT Dolan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2008, 04:44:26 AM »
My question is, to what extent did the jury understand the nature of the gun's design?  Surely the attorneys working on behalf of FA worked hard to help them understand the nature of the design, but even so I would guess the opposition did not have to work nearly as hard to illustrate the alternative.

Even though I do not have an intimate understanding of the innerworkings of the Model 83, I've always wished FA would change it to a transfer bar mechanism.  I've always carried my 475 with 4 rounds and the hammer over an empty chamber so I'm not concerned with safety, but what I do dislike is the inability to have all 5 rounds at the ready.  It kind of seems like a waste to me, to have 5 chambers, but to only have the ability to have 4 in use at any one time.  For this reason I wish FA would convert the Model 83 to use a transfer bar safety.

Offline fowler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2008, 07:15:12 AM »
I understand the desire and I too carry 4 rounds in my 475 but does it really matter? I mean A: once you fire the first round the empty cylinder is in line with the loading gate so flip it open and drop in a fresh round if you really want/need it. B: what problem would you get into that 4 rounds of 475 Linebaugh wouldn't fix? I mean if you really do need 5 rounds you are too far away or you have not practiced enough before the hunt. One shot, one kill that is the goal. Heck if you were about to get into game such as stalking up on a bedded animal you could always slip another round in the cylinder and have it fully loaded for just the last few steps.

It is a non factor as far as I am concerned, I would carry only 4 in the 97 as well and it has a transfer bar on it. The only time I feel it comes into play is when you have drunk morons getting on a horse and blowing his damn fool leg off through no fault of FA and then suiting FA for his own stupidity!

Offline Bearbait in NM

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2008, 08:01:50 AM »
Wow, digging up a pretty old thread.  But likley useful to illustrate your new question about carry condition.

I don't know if the case transcripts are or will ever be available, but they would make a nice read.  I have spent a great deal of time trying to understand the workings of my M83, I can can not for the life of me duplicate a situation where the hammer falls and strikes the fp without some manipulation of the trigger.  I am betting as the jury confirmed some % of blame to Taylor, that this was demonstrated to some extent.

Back to the question of how many rounds are safe.  This has been discussed here and other places, and I'll give my take, which may get me into more trouble than you, for raising an old thread.  The first question to ask is what exactly is this hammer block bar.  One possible use would be to block the hammer fall before the hammer reaches the half cock/loading notch.  But, it is not raised until the notch is reached, so that does not work.  Also, at either the half cock or full cock position it is up so perhaps its design is to block a fp strike in the event the gun is dropped while at half or full cock.  In either of these situations, half or full cock, whther or not you had an empty round under the hammer is a moot point, as the cylinder has been rotated out of battery for half-cock/loading, or completely rotated to the next cylinder for full cock.

The other possible reason for the blocking bar was a design to allow the gun to be carried safely with all chambers loaded.  Unfortunately, there is no way FA will ever admit to this now.  And for good reason.  Unless some of the long time FA owners chime in with some historical help, we may never know definatively the initial design use.  

A couple of things that I do know.  First, to get the gun to this blocked position takes a couple of manipulations that many might find dangerous.  You have to be able to control the hammer from falling while manipulating the trigger.  You have to rotate the cylinder back into the locked bolt position.  All of this takes thought and control.  I find it easy and safe to do at the range or at home, where the gun is always pointed safely.

Another point that I do know is that as long as I keep my finger off the trigger, if I manipulate the hammer from the "blocked" position, the block remains raised until the gun is at the half-cock/reloading position, so that I cannot drop the hammer on the FP.  Or theoretically if the gun were to fall on the hammer it could strike the FP.

The other thing that I do know is that the blocking bar is a substancial piece of metal, that has a significant amount of metal in contact with the frame, while engaged.  There is more metal here than say a 1911 hammer/sear interface which I rely on almost daily to not "fail".  There is more metal here than say the break lines in my vehicle, which daily I rely upon to keep me from getting killed.  I know my analogies may be imperfect, but I think they illustrate a point.  In our daily lives we rely on many things outside our direct control to keep us safe.

Which brings us back to the arguement frequently raised.  Do you really need 5 rounds in the gun?  I guess in a pure offensive/hunting role, 4 ought to be enough.  For me, I try and keep things simple with all of my guns.  They are either fully unloaded or fully loaded and safed, depending  on their role or where they are at.  I live in a reasonably remote location, I shoot in very remote locations, and hunt and recreate in the same.  I have qualified with my 83 for my CCW.  When my 83 goes on my hip, it is fully loaded (5)with the blocking bar raised, in a very high quality thumb-break holster.  At this point it becomes my CCW gun until I get to the shooting hole where I practice and recreate with it.  Here I practice my shooting and gun manipulations just as I would while hunting or carrying.  Same with my 1911's.  7 in the mag, one in the chamber, safety on, while I am wearing it.  I hunt with both 83 and 1911, I CCW with both, and treat each the same.  And from what I can tell, as long as I keep my finger off the trigger until I need to fire the darn thing, I should be safe.

Craig  

Offline Bob Baker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 80
    • http://www.freedomarms.com
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2008, 08:15:51 AM »
I rarely get on the internet anymore as I just don’t have the time.  I thought it was interesting that this thread was still going.

I won’t get into the particulars of the case but will give some thoughts regarding safeties.

The M83 safety bar, the M97 transfer bar and the Ruger transfer bar can all be overridden in the field which is why we strongly recommend carrying the gun with an empty chamber under the hammer as well as having a strong, properly fitting hammer strap retaining the gun in the holster.

The hammer strap not only retains the gun in the holster but it keeps the hammer from being cocked very far back which could rotate the next loaded chamber into battery.

Now picture this, your hiking in the mountains.  Plenty of brush and limbs are available to hang on the hammer spur which will flip the hammer back as far as the hammer strap will let it go.  Now you catch that one moment when brush, a twig or limb catches the trigger at the same time the hammer is being flipped.  With the trigger depressed the safety is overridden and the gun fires.  This can happen regardless of whether you have the M83 safety bar, the M97 transfer bar, the Ruger transfer bar or the Colt quarter cock notch.

Online Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26945
  • Gender: Male
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2008, 11:42:21 AM »
The only safety device I trust is the one between my ears.

Good to see you drop in from time to time Bob. What if anything has ever become of that single shot you brought by my house for me to play with? Will it make production? If so I'd sure like a crack at one for a review.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline CT Dolan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2008, 01:01:53 PM »
Thanks, Bob, good points well taken.

With regard to my preference for carrying with 5 loaded in the cylinder, I am a traditional bowhunter (longbow) and a FA will be my carrying piece when the time comes to make my Alaskan moose dreams come true.  It is this kind of use which has always had me wanting to feel safe carrying with all 5 chambers loaded (not general hunting).

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18269
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2008, 03:05:24 AM »
this is a sad world we live in where everyone sues everyone for there own stupidity. Probably fortunate that it didnt go to court 2 years from now because ive got the feeling that the gun manufactures are going to be fround on even more by then. A guy will probably be able to sue if he cuts his little finger on a gun.
blue lives matter

Offline Davemuzz

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2009
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2008, 04:01:57 AM »
When you step into the world of the court room, the 12 "peers" in cases such as this, are not "well informed" "peers". Just as we know there is a difference between a frangible bullet and a full metal jacket, to the novice that is sitting as juror number 6, a bullet is a bullet. Unless of course....it's California and your name happens to be O.J.

Anyone with enough money can buy a Maserati. But do you have to read the manual to know that it will actually go to speeds of 160 mph? And if you hit a pole at that speed you will die? Oh.....man.....I hope that guy doesn't ultimately win this, get paid and then buy a Maserati!!! I'm sure his Estate will sue!!!

Sad part is....this is sooooo true.

Dave

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2008, 05:44:05 AM »
the guy won the legal lotto !
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline WL44

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2008, 07:50:05 PM »
Let's sue for hammer bite! Oh and hearing loss..... Hmmmm.... scope eye (I could sue for that). Do you need to warn guys that heavy handgun loads will hurt your wrists and hands over time?

What warnings are required on pocket knives?

Maybe guns just need a catch all - "you can seriously hurt yourself or others abusing (?using) this thing".

I suppose this adds nothing more; I'm sure you all have better examples, but I'll just echo the sentiments, it's a sad world...




Online Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26945
  • Gender: Male
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2008, 02:43:41 AM »
Indeed it is a sad state of affairs when one is rewarded by the courts for one's own stupidity. Such lawsuits should not even be allowed. Guns are dangerous and you can hurt yourself with one. Wow what a revelation. They'd be pretty useless if they weren't dangerous wouldn't they? One should not be rewarded for being stupid. Those are the kind that need to be weeded out of the gene pool anyway.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: FA loses law suit
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2008, 04:11:29 AM »
GB , I agree but I blame it on we the people !
If those on jury would find NOT Guilty the BS laws would go away !
Its this get it for free wealfare nation we have created that makes people feel ITS NOT THEIR FAULT !
%#@&%$

If ya can see it ya can hit it !