Interesting Court Case in California

Legal fight targets gun design in fatality

 

morons, what do they want next, a gun that is going to say "YOu are about to kill someone, please click "OK" to continue, or "cancel" to abort"...... You pick up a gun, whether it be a real gun, toy gun, a FRICING water gun, and point it at someone, you better be ready to pay the consequences if that person gets hurt/killed.... If our society would quit claiming ignorance and start teaching kids more, then we wouldn't be dealing with this shit....... this reminds me of a topic a friend brought up..... nevermind. too hard to explain.

 

Zeb, that wasn't even the interesting part of the story. The whole "If you point a gun at someone and kill by pulling the trigger, it's not your fault if you thought the gun was unloaded. Instead, it's the gun's fault" thing has been done over and over again.

The interesting part is at the bottom of the article where they discussed how they had to bring the case back because they discovered that a juror who believes in personal responsibility had tainted the deliberations with his heretical views.

 

I am anti hand gun but the guy that shoots someone is the one to blame, not the gun maker. The parents do share the responsiblity in this too.

ps the dad should have known that the gun was defective (couldn't tell if it had a round in the chamber without Jacking it) and not had it in his house.

 

I'm sorry, but the jack ass left one in the pipe. I never do that. EVER!
I treat every gun as if there is one in the chamber.

I guess the parents of the kid who pulled the trigger didn't have enough money so they're going after the manufacturer.

 

Slow:

I don't know a lot about guns so i won't pretend to intelligently dicuss liability, but the issue of the juror is different than the one you posted - I think. The article reported "The way was cleared for a retrial after an appellate court ruled a panelist came to the jury box convinced it was Clarence Soe's responsibility, not the gun maker's, to ensure the pistol was properly stored and his son was taught firearm safety."

Jurors are instructed to 1. Obey the law as instructed by the judge, and 2. keep and open mind as to the facts. If the juror admittedly had his mind made up before the trial started ("came to the jury box" means his mind was made up beforehand, I think), then the jury's determination was tainted and a retrial may be ordered by the judge.

Personally, i like jurors who believe in personal responsibility in many of my cases for plaintiffs b/c often is is the DEFENDANT who failed to take personal responsibility for a duty to prevent injury. Indeed, person responsibility is the foundation of much of our tort law, IMHO.

Rodger

 

Start locking the parents up and this shit will stop happening.

The parent that owned the gun is responsible.

When children are brought into my house the parents are for warned that I have a loaded 9mm piston in my bedroom. The magazine is in it but there is not a round chambered... however I always treat the gun as if there is a round chambered. If the parent has a problem with the gun or the children are too young(parents' call) I will unload the gun. The parents always know where the gun is too.

 

Now let me see - IIRC the standard procedure for selection of a jury in a jury trial is an interview process where they ask questions to weed out people who have conflicts of interest, or who have prejudiced viewpoints, or whose minds are already made up. Both the defense and the prosecution must agree on each juror, and either one can say no to a prospective juror.

If that procedure was followed, then how can it be that such a radical slipped past them? Perhaps this court chooses jurors differently, like by the color of their shoes or whether they rode the bus or a bicycle that day, or something like that.

Seems to me, though, that this smells more like, "it was a juror's fault that we didn't get a finding for the plaintiff - yeah, that's it!"

 

Slow:

The issue is not whether he was a radical, but rather whether he had pre-judged the case before hearing the evidence and was instructed by the court as to what the law was. One of the basic questions usually asked of jurors by both sides is whether they have an open mind as to the case and that they will follow the judge's instrucitions about what the law is even if they don't agree with it. Juror's have occassionally lied about this before.

The article did not adequately explain the situation so it is dificult for me to comment with any real authority.

But i do agree that the plaintiffs' counsel is fighting what would appear to be a losing battle given the negligence of the parent and of the child -- and teh finding of the first jury, flawed or not.

What is "IIRC"?

Rodger

Podex perfectus es

 

Thanks for the explanation. Still smells.

Maybe - maybe not. The venue is Berserkely, California. Berserkely is the spiritual home of the 9th Circuit Court. Stranger things have happened there.

If I Recall Correctly.

 

I understand your feelings. I am anti two-stroke.

There's nothing defective about the Beretta design. It works perfectly. FYI the Berettas absolutely do have a loaded chamber indicator on them. It's clear as day IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT.

The travesty is that the father should never have allowed his son unsupervised access to the firearm in the first place. Apparently the parents don't have enough money to make the lawyers happy, so that's one of the reasons why they pursued the manufacturer over such a ridiculous issue.

 

that was sarcasm I am anti hand gun but it was not Berettas' fault the gun seemed to work perfectly.

I think voir dire is one of the stupidest part of our legal system. Makes for trial by the dumbest rather then trial by peers. When was the last time you heard of a doc on a medical mal prac jury. who would best know if there was mal prac. I have read lots of jury charges and they are a joke.

That rag that Rog's dad writes for had an editorial on Junk sci and the court about 3 or 4 years ago.

ps anti 2 stroke man I knew we would never get along

 

Semper ubi sub ubi.

 

Always where under where????

Is this the Canadian national Motto??!!!

 

Glen,

If a doctor mistakenly amputated your right leg when you were actually in for a femoral bypass, would you want a jury full of doctors?

 

yes

but all from tertiary centers

 

Why?

 

doc s are about as hard on each others mistakes as any group I have ever seen.

I also think that they should pull lic on doc s more then they do.

 

Naww, its the sort of stuff that used to piss off Mr. Lloyd in his grade 6 latin class.

Wtf is a "tertiary centre"??? I think I'd want doctors from a different hospital.

 

third level of care often call a teaching hos.