JohnRich 4 #1 January 10, 2012 An ex-con steals a handgun from a homeowner, and accidentally fatally shoots himself with the stolen gun. The ex-con's ex-wife sues both the gun owner and the gun manufacturer as being responsible for her ex-husband's death. The case: http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/010612PLCAA.pdf Who is responsible for the ex-con's demise? 1) The gun owner, from whom the gun was stolen? 2) The gun manufacturer, who made the gun? 3) The ex-con who stole the gun and accidentally shot himself with it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #2 January 10, 2012 You forgot to blame the gun itself. It might have just violently loaded itself when he wasn't looking. Then violently turned to point at him. Then violently squeezed its own trigger. I'm told that's their nature....... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #3 January 10, 2012 This case was already thrown out and it is now on appeal. It looks like they were hoping for Glock to throw some money at them to go away and it didn't work. Good. The owner of the gun should sue the estate for the cost of cleaning up anD the cost of the spent round. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #4 January 10, 2012 QuoteThis case was already thrown out and it is now on appeal. It looks like they were hoping for Glock to throw some money at them to go away and it didn't work. Good. Ya. I'd say it has less to do with guns than just how lawsuits work these days. If a product from a large company is involved in any way, they get dragged into it just of the off chance they're willing to pony up some dough to make it go away.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #5 January 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteThis case was already thrown out and it is now on appeal. It looks like they were hoping for Glock to throw some money at them to go away and it didn't work. Good. Ya. I'd say it has less to do with guns than just how lawsuits work these days. If a product from a large company is involved in any way, they get dragged into it just of the off chance they're willing to pony up some dough to make it go away. It's know as "nuisance value". Or the "just go away" payoff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #6 January 10, 2012 QuoteYou forgot to blame the gun itself. Surely you jest? Thats like trying to blame a match for arson!-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 January 10, 2012 Too bad this happened in Massachusetts rather than Texas. http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235820-perry-signs-loser-pays-lawsuit-reform-into-law QuoteGov. Rick Perry on Monday signed a bill that will implement a "loser pays" system to stop frivolous lawsuits in Texas. House Bill 274 enacts several measures that supporters say will streamline and lower the cost of litigation in Texas courts, allowing parties to resolve disputes more quickly, more fairly and less expensively. "HB 274 provides defendants and judges with a variety of tools that will cut down on frivolous claims in Texas," Gov. Perry said. "This important legislation will help make Texas that much more attractive to employers seeking to expand or relocate from countries all over the world by allowing them to spend less time in court and more time creating jobs." Under the bill, some civil plaintiffs who sue and lose will be required to pay the court costs and attorney fees of those they are suing. The law creates expedited civil actions for cases less than $100,000 and allows judges to dismiss meritless lawsuits early in the process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 January 10, 2012 Too bad this happened in Massachusetts rather than Texas. http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235820-perry-signs-loser-pays-lawsuit-reform-into-law QuoteGov. Rick Perry on Monday signed a bill that will implement a "loser pays" system to stop frivolous lawsuits in Texas. House Bill 274 enacts several measures that supporters say will streamline and lower the cost of litigation in Texas courts, allowing parties to resolve disputes more quickly, more fairly and less expensively. "HB 274 provides defendants and judges with a variety of tools that will cut down on frivolous claims in Texas," Gov. Perry said. "This important legislation will help make Texas that much more attractive to employers seeking to expand or relocate from countries all over the world by allowing them to spend less time in court and more time creating jobs." Under the bill, some civil plaintiffs who sue and lose will be required to pay the court costs and attorney fees of those they are suing. The law creates expedited civil actions for cases less than $100,000 and allows judges to dismiss meritless lawsuits early in the process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #9 January 10, 2012 wow, finally something good comes from US-soil; that's standard practice where i'm from. rick perry for president, finally a guy that seems to have his shit together AND some common sense to boot! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 January 10, 2012 One of the problems with the U.S. political system IMO is that it is dominated by lawyers and they are supported by the different legal organizations and their lobbyists. They take care of each other. This is one of the reasons our healthcare costs are out of control. Any attempt at capping the amount of an award for a successful lawsuit is quickly quashed by politicians who get much of their support from the ABA. If we had a greater diversity in whom our choices are for elected office, we would likely have greater protection against frivolous lawsuits and smaller awards for medical malpractice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #11 January 10, 2012 well, i thought it was YOU THE PEOPLE that elected your politicians!? and as for greater choices; i can hardly think of ANY democratic country that only has two parties to choose from. sometimes even dictatorships have greater choices! (not that it would matter in that instant) from the top of my head, here's the free democratic party, the swiss people's party, the christian peoples party, the social party, the green party, the peoples democratic party.. and i'm pretty sure i forgot the one or other.. “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 January 10, 2012 I think you missed my point. We are presented with mostly lawyers as our choice of candidates regardless of political affiliation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #13 January 10, 2012 Quote I think you missed my point. We are presented with mostly lawyers as our choice of candidates regardless of political affiliation. well, then it's up to YOU THE PEOPLE to change that.. THAT's how a democracy works! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #14 January 10, 2012 Quote Quote This case was already thrown out and it is now on appeal. It looks like they were hoping for Glock to throw some money at them to go away and it didn't work. Good. Ya. I'd say it has less to do with guns than just how lawsuits work these days. I agree with that but you were too nice. F'n bozo legal system. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #15 January 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou forgot to blame the gun itself. Surely you jest? Thats like trying to blame a match for arson! That's hot! Gotta watch out for those matches, too. Matches are made in heaven.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #16 January 10, 2012 Quote Quote I think you missed my point. We are presented with mostly lawyers as our choice of candidates regardless of political affiliation. well, then it's up to YOU THE PEOPLE to change that.. THAT's how a democracy works! Yeah, right. Please keep in mind you are talking to 'Mericans. Sheep get what the pigs deign to trickle down to them....and like it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,351 #17 January 10, 2012 Quote well, i thought it was YOU THE PEOPLE that elected your politicians!? and as for greater choices; i can hardly think of ANY democratic country that only has two parties to choose from. sometimes even dictatorships have greater choices! (not that it would matter in that instant) from the top of my head, here's the free democratic party, the swiss people's party, the christian peoples party, the social party, the green party, the peoples democratic party.. and i'm pretty sure i forgot the one or other.. We do elect them. But we are forced to choose from candidates who have pretty much sold their souls in order to get on the ticket. To get the funds (money rules everything in politics) to mount a major campaign, they have to have the support of major lobbying groups. It can be anything - AARP, NRA, Sierra Club, AOPA, OOIDA, NAMBLA (Google them if you really want to find out what they are and represent). So we have to choose which lobbying group is closest to our own interests. Or which one we hate the most and vote for the opponent. I've voted against more candidates by voting for their opponent than acutally liking or agreeing with the candidate I voted for. So in the end, we are given a choice between a giant douche, and a turd sandwich. http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s08e08-douche-and-turd And lots of democratic countries have only two major parties. Japan, Britain, France, Canada off the top of my head. Usually Liberals (of some sort) and Conservatives (of some sort). Some have more viable third and fourth parties of some flavor or another, but they usually link up with one of the two major players. Here in the US, we have one technically "independent" congress-critter. But he caucuses with the Dems."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #18 January 10, 2012 Yep. It's like a college Slave Auction Night. "I'm running for office...whatamI bid?" Lobbyist A: $1 million! Lobbyist B: $2 million! Lobbyist C: $3 million! Lobbyist D: $4 million! Lobbyist E: $10 million! "SOLD! Now what is it you want me to do for you?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #19 January 10, 2012 Quote Too bad this happened in Massachusetts rather than Texas. http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/235820-perry-signs-loser-pays-lawsuit-reform-into-law Quote Gov. Rick Perry on Monday signed a bill that will implement a "loser pays" system to stop frivolous lawsuits in Texas. House Bill 274 enacts several measures that supporters say will streamline and lower the cost of litigation in Texas courts, allowing parties to resolve disputes more quickly, more fairly and less expensively. "HB 274 provides defendants and judges with a variety of tools that will cut down on frivolous claims in Texas," Gov. Perry said. "This important legislation will help make Texas that much more attractive to employers seeking to expand or relocate from countries all over the world by allowing them to spend less time in court and more time creating jobs." Under the bill, some civil plaintiffs who sue and lose will be required to pay the court costs and attorney fees of those they are suing. The law creates expedited civil actions for cases less than $100,000 and allows judges to dismiss meritless lawsuits early in the process. Just in time for elections! Geee... what a guy! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #20 January 10, 2012 I voted the only 'common sense' answer... the ex con caused his own death. I don't think I have to go into detail. The ex wife is just looking for a quick buck. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #22 January 10, 2012 Quote http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s08e08-douche-and-turd that was fucking funny! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #23 January 10, 2012 well, then it's up to YOU THE PEOPLE to change that.. THAT's how a democracy works! In theory! In reality, the self-centered 'human factor' enters the subject and everything goes to shit.Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
