Remington Under Fire

[Char-Gar]

"So, what does all of that have to do with Remington? Not much, I guess.
Whether or not Remington produced a defective product remains to be proven. "

Good post John. I just want to say, that in at least once instance (Texas trial) that the Remington rifle was proven to be defective. All of the legal mumbo jumbo is only relevant, in that many folks, want to shift the responsibility from Remington to the Legal Community.

I like Remington 700 rifles, have one and would purchase another without hesitation. But, facts are stubborn things, and it would appear, there is a great likelihood Remington had their way with the shooters of American on this one. I would think, these same shooters, being the folks who got bent over by Remington, would be the first to cry foul. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Shooters are not able to recognize the deference between a justified law suit against a gun maker, and the bogus law suits which are a stalking horse for the anti-gun folks. I credit a general bias against Lawyers for this tunnel vision.

[HangFireW8]

That is an opinion you hold and not an accepted fact. In our legal system, the jury is the decider of disputed facts and they did not agree with you. In fact Mike Walker the man who designed the 700 and the trigger for Remington admitted the trigger needed to be modified and told Remington so, but Remington refused to modify the design.

Chargar, if you had been paying attention, you'd already know that I agree with these facts. It is connecting Remington's negligence with the owner's negligence that caused the discharge that I disagree with. The faultiest safety in the world does not excuse the complete, total and culpable negligence of driving around with loaded guns in vehicles and then pulling them forward by the barrel while they are pointed at people. As far as I am concerned, such people should NOT be protected from their own negligence. It is the legal system that creates a connection between these two sets of (undisputed) facts that mystifies me. Perhaps there is even more that I don't know, that might change my mind.

-Ken

[chris112]

Concerning the gal with the McDee coffee. Anyone who sticks a styrofoam cup of hot liquid between their thighs while driving they deserve what they get. If I had been on that jury that is the only thing that would have mattered to me. There are times in this life you need to use your brains for something other than keeping your ears apart.

[John 242]

Not to pile on you, I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I have a problem with the following statements:

My Uncles was present when the accident in Texas took place. The son reached into a vehicle and pulled the rifle by the barrel toward him. It discharged cutting his father's spine.

Pulling a loaded rifle out by the barrel is irresponsible, reckless and negligent. I think we agree, do we not?

Negligence is defined as "What would a reasonable prudent person (gun maker, etc) do under the same or similar circumstances. Firearms being what they are, a very high standard of care is necessary to ensure they don't shoot the wrong thing or person.

Exactly, that’s why you don’t pull a loaded rifle by the barrel out of a vehicle! Because they require a “very high standard of care [that] is necessary to ensure they don’t shoot the wrong thing or person” the onus is on the user to ensure that they handle their rifle in a safe manner. If the person pulling the rifle out of the vehicle had acted “reasonable and prudent”, the discharge would not have taken place and no one would have been injured.

In the case at hand, it was not settled, but went to a jury trial which decided that Remington was indeed negligent in the design of the firearm and awarded damages accordingly.

Of course they did. Refer to my post above about the McDonalds coffee suit and it’s outcome and then examine the facts in this case.
The actor places himself and others at risk, injures someone, and Remington is found responsible because of the design of their rifle? WTH? All the egregious violations of safe gun handling and the responsibility for the discharge falls on Remington?

I guess the next time I’m playing with my M4, you know, pointing it at people and pulling the trigger with the safety on, if it happens to go off when I flick it to semi, I guess I’ll sue Colt.

I'm not trying to be a jerk and I am far from being a Remington fan (I think their quality has gone to hell), but I honestly feel that people should not be rewarded for their own stupidity.

By the way, it's after midnight here so I'm going to bed.
Take care,
John

[Char-Gar]

John.. Your first post was well researched and thought out. It does my heart good to see posts by folks who take the time to get the facts. I don't know if you are a lawyer or not, but for others who might read this, there are different levels of negligence.

There is ordinary negligence and gross negligence. Gross negligence,is so egregious,as to be tantamount to being willful/intentional. In these cases, the law does allow for a damages which do indeed punish the defendant for their gross negligence.

British tort law like British gun law is really weird stuff and doesn't relate much to America. Mexican tort law is also really weird and is best left south of the border.

[HangFireW8]

OK, so Remington was grossly negligent, does that mean I can sue them too, since I once owned a Remington rifle? Or do I have to be grossly negligent first to have the right to sue? By sue, I mean sue and win millions of bucks.

[Char-Gar]

Well, this has heated up again, so here goes.

Hangfire.. Your retired, so that that way!

John.. I would agree with you the gun handling in the Texas case was at least stupid if not worse. I would also agree that folks should not be rewarded for their own stupidity. Where we would disagree, is that Remington should not be given a pass if their defective rifle was at least 51% of the cause behind the whole mess. But for the defective rifle, the poor gun handling would not have resulted in an injury. Things like this are never clear and simple. The clear and simple ones never go to court. It is these complex and perplexing cases that go to a jury. This is the reason why we have juries and I for one am willing to not try and second guess them on the Internet.

I don't have a dog in the fight in either the McDonald's coffee case, or the Remington rifle case. I am also content to let folks think what they will of Lawyers.

I will rise to the defense of juries and their decisions. We are the only country in the world that allows common folks to be the deciders of disputed facts across the board. Some counties have juries, but they don't have the power and authority like they do in American. Most countries, like Mexico, Italy and the like to not have juries at all. The fate of the people are in the hands of judges, many of which are unqualified or political appointees. Travesties are common.

Both the 2nd Amendments and the Jury System are both expressions of the sovereignty of the American people. These are rights are what separate this wonderful country from from all of the rest on this globe.

Our Jury System and our legal system are not perfect, but they are far, far better than every other in the world.

[Char-Gar]

Hangfire.. Trying to educate you seems to be an endless process that is not bearing fruit.

You cannot sue Remington, because you were not shot!!! Go shoot yourself with a Remington 700 and we will talk about it.

[HangFireW8]

Hangfire.. Trying to educate you seems to be an endless process that is not bearing fruit.

You cannot sue Remington, because you were not shot!!! Go shoot yourself with a Remington 700 and we will talk about it.

Chargar,

You are right, I can't sue Remington, because my owning a 700 had nothing to do with their negligence... just like the plaintiff's shooting themselves had nothing to do with Remington's negligence.

As for education, you steadfastly refuse to discuss my point, so look which direction the fingers are pointing.

Please reply to my post #82 if you want to educate me. I've already pointed out, multiple times, that I don't see the connection between the (stated, obvious, accepted) negligence of Remington, and the (stated, obvious, seemingly unconnected) negligence of the plaintiffs, which brought about their injury.

You seem to be content that there was negligence on Remington's side, but since that didn't cause the discharge, and any harm could have been averted by any number of safe gun handling steps ignored by the plaintiffs, I've yet to see any explanation of how Remington's negligence, however well proven, has anything to do with the plaintiff's self-lart.

But, anyway, I'm not arguing with you any more, anyone reading the thread can see you've been avoiding discussing any connection or causality, though I thank you for explaining some points of law and bringing out the facts of the case.

-HF

[bowfin]

I own two lefthanded models and my brother owns one of them ***** righthanded ones. No problems so far in the last 30 years.

I'm thinking it would be a feather in their cap if they could help run Remington out of business, much like what happened to the original Harrington & Richardson company. They lost a lawsuit in which a kid drilled out the barrel of a starter pistol and crippled another kid.

[a.squibload]

Well it's their own fault, they shoulda made those barrels out of Undrillium.
'Course a starter pistol would cost about $3000...

[Char-Gar]

I own two lefthanded models and my brother owns one of them ***** righthanded ones. No problems so far in the last 30 years.

I'm thinking it would be a feather in their cap if they could help run Remington out of business, much like what happened to the original Harrington & Richardson company. They lost a lawsuit in which a kid drilled out the barrel of a starter pistol and crippled another kid.

I have never been killed in an airplane crash. Goodness know how hundreds of thousands of miles I have flow in the past 60 years!

[9.3X62AL]

Was contributory negligence a factor here? That is, was the award balanced out by weighing plaintiff and defendant liabilities for the course of conduct?

[Char-Gar]

I don't know the particulars of the case, but it was a Texas case. In Texas we do have "Comparative Negligence" that does as you mentioned in your case.