Larry Eldridge's _Trials of a Philadelphia Lawyer_, which I read in law school 30 years ago, mentioned one of his cases where a hunter's DOG shot him. He had put his rifle on safe and laid it against a fence while he crossed the fence. His dog knocked the rifle over while jumping the fence and it discharged.
The rifle was bagged by the ambulance crew. Eldridge filed suit for the hunter and the rifle was delivered to the parties' expert witnesses for disassembly. The rifle manufacturer defendant's representative suggested the rifle be placed on a white sheet before disassembly. A little speck came out of the safety when they opened it up and the rifle guy said, "Aha!"
It turned out that the safety had been jammed by some undetonated powder. The experts agreed on how the safety design made that possible, the case was settled and the safety was redesigned.
And no other hunters were injured that way.
The House bill removes all incentives for gun manufacturers to produce safe weapons.
I suppose they'll do the same for car manufacturers next.
That's not true. The bill actually forbids actions "for damages or injunctive relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party[.]"
Then there are a series of exceptions, when such lawsuits ARE allowed. This particular case in Calif. would have been allowed under the bill that passed the House.
The bill is not very long or complicated--anyone can read it, so try it before you start gracing us with your wisdom on its contents.