Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rightwinggoth
Right you are. But, if you remember back during the fight to pass it, the anti's screamed that it would be impossible to sue a gun company if it passed.

As can be seen here, defective product can in fact be subject to litigation contrary to the anti's propaganda.

This does look like defective product or perhaps incorrect ammunition being used.

Regards
154 posted on 02/09/2006 8:45:53 AM PST by headstamp (Nothing lasts forever, Unless it does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: headstamp

IIRC, the gist of it was that you couldn't hold a gun / ammo manufacturer strictly liable for the actions of somebody else. I.e., my neighbor goes crazy and blows away my wife and son before killing himself, I sue the companies that manufactured the gun and ammo he used on a strict liability claim. The way S/L tort claims work is that you don't need to show any kind of intent or negligence on the part of the defendant, just that his actions -- or product -- caused the injury in question. So, in a wrongful death case like the one I just described, you would need only show that the defendants manufactured the gun and ammo used in the killings in order to get a large jury verdict from them, or alternatively coerce a large settlement out of court. That was the kind of crazy stuff that was happening before the passage of this act, and what it was designed to stop from happening.


168 posted on 02/09/2006 9:08:35 AM PST by rightwinggoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson