As always, the anti-gun (take away our freedoms and Constitutional rights) groupees will enjoy this. Blame the gun, blame the manufacturer, how about putting the blame where it should reside – the guy that pulled the trigger? Oh no, that’s too easy, and does not fit into the anti-gunners programs and plots. Too few remember that one of the first things a dictator (like Hitler, Stalin and the Mayor of New Orleans) does is to take all power unto themselves is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
This is ridiculous. $600,000 for what? If not this gun, the hoodlum shooter would have gotten one from someone else. This doesn’t appear to be a random shooting. I can see why a background check would be useful in some professions where worken go into peoples homes and interact with them. Working in a factory is another story. What’s the standard of care? Is it foreseeable some druggie would swipe a weapon, sell it, and it would ultimately be used in a murder? Economically it’s probably not a bad settlement, but the proximate cause here are 3 pieces of human garbage, not the gun manufacturer.
Yes, but we label them now as BATF agents – who give guns to the bad guys while taking them away from the good guys. Also- remember what occurred in New Orleans when it flooded from Katrina – the Mayor sent out what few cops had stayed in the city to take lawfully owned guns from citizens who then had no protection from the criminal elements, and no cops to maintain order. So much for the government protecting the public when it’s needed. I certainly would rather rely on myself and my firearms.
While a $600k settlement seems excessive for the gun-maker’s involvement, there are issues that could explain it:
1) The deceased victim’s family probably has no real civil recourse against the murderer. (Street level drug dealers tend not to have much in the way of stock options and 401k/roth portfolios.)
2) The manufacturer should have performed background checks of their employees. I work in an insurance claims office. I had to go through a federal and civil background check prior to employment, and I work at a desk, not with firearms.
3) Firearms are a intrinsically hazardous product. As such, the manufacturer could easily be fond to have exposure (from an insurance standpoint) under the absolute liability doctrine, regardless of their intent/fault.
4) Businesses have deeper pockets than individuals. ’nuff said.
While I think the monetary award is high, I do see it as justifiable–and this is coming from a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
My thoughts exactly! The article stated that the man who stole the gun had a criminal background…felons are not allowed to possess firearms…I’m not saying this man was a felon, but you would think a gun factory, by law, would have to ensure that no felons are employed there, and in turn, would be able to see any criminal history and make a judgement call, depending on what the charges were, on whether or not to hire somebody. I know that any Joe Blow with no prior record could one day just flip their switch and pull the same (or similar) stunt, but at least the gun manufacturer would be showing they are trying to be proactive in trying to hire only the best employees for the job.
Back ground checks are a great idea, but not mandated by law. In fact sometimes if your back ground checks “disproportionately” affect minorities, you could be sued for that.
Kahr, you make a great product, please move down to Florida, we would welcome you and provide a fairer legal environment.
Someone has to be at fault. It’s just that the someone at fault had no money. Next please… Oh, he had no money either…. Next please… and down the line to the manufacturer of the weapon involved. Could they have done a background check.. Yes. Should they.. Yes. Did the gun hit the ground and go off on its own or did someones finger pull the trigger? If the gun malfunctioned, blame the manufacturer. If someone pulled the trigger then blame them. Yes the circumstances suck but really how is it the manufacturers fault someone, not in their right mind pulled the trigger of a gun manufactured with no defect? I think that as far as the murder goes, the manufacture has no ownership. As far as the gun being stolen from them by their employee, they need to rethink their employees and how they acquire them.
I think of it like an employee steals a truck from his employers locked yard and runs over a pedestrian at a intersection… What’s the difference?
I have to confess that in reading the comments I couldn’t see how the manufacturer should be held negligent or in any way responsible for the death or the injury. In reading the article however I can see a potential for ‘Negligent Entrustment’. I doesn’t say how long the employee had been employed, what screening the employee had been subject to or how often. Depending on the unknown answers to those questions the manufacurer could have some degree of responsibility.
Plumbers do random drug tests and this GUN MAKER does not? Good decision on behalf of the court.
The gun could just as easily have been stolen by a sober person.
As always, the anti-gun (take away our freedoms and Constitutional rights) groupees will enjoy this. Blame the gun, blame the manufacturer, how about putting the blame where it should reside – the guy that pulled the trigger? Oh no, that’s too easy, and does not fit into the anti-gunners programs and plots. Too few remember that one of the first things a dictator (like Hitler, Stalin and the Mayor of New Orleans) does is to take all power unto themselves is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
Hitler named them “Storm Troopers”. This unit was in charge of rounding up all the guns from the public.
Exactly. There are truely crazy or unstable people out there who sadly kill others… how is that gun manufacturer’s fault?
This is ridiculous. $600,000 for what? If not this gun, the hoodlum shooter would have gotten one from someone else. This doesn’t appear to be a random shooting. I can see why a background check would be useful in some professions where worken go into peoples homes and interact with them. Working in a factory is another story. What’s the standard of care? Is it foreseeable some druggie would swipe a weapon, sell it, and it would ultimately be used in a murder? Economically it’s probably not a bad settlement, but the proximate cause here are 3 pieces of human garbage, not the gun manufacturer.
Yes, but we label them now as BATF agents – who give guns to the bad guys while taking them away from the good guys. Also- remember what occurred in New Orleans when it flooded from Katrina – the Mayor sent out what few cops had stayed in the city to take lawfully owned guns from citizens who then had no protection from the criminal elements, and no cops to maintain order. So much for the government protecting the public when it’s needed. I certainly would rather rely on myself and my firearms.
While a $600k settlement seems excessive for the gun-maker’s involvement, there are issues that could explain it:
1) The deceased victim’s family probably has no real civil recourse against the murderer. (Street level drug dealers tend not to have much in the way of stock options and 401k/roth portfolios.)
2) The manufacturer should have performed background checks of their employees. I work in an insurance claims office. I had to go through a federal and civil background check prior to employment, and I work at a desk, not with firearms.
3) Firearms are a intrinsically hazardous product. As such, the manufacturer could easily be fond to have exposure (from an insurance standpoint) under the absolute liability doctrine, regardless of their intent/fault.
4) Businesses have deeper pockets than individuals. ’nuff said.
While I think the monetary award is high, I do see it as justifiable–and this is coming from a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
My thoughts exactly! The article stated that the man who stole the gun had a criminal background…felons are not allowed to possess firearms…I’m not saying this man was a felon, but you would think a gun factory, by law, would have to ensure that no felons are employed there, and in turn, would be able to see any criminal history and make a judgement call, depending on what the charges were, on whether or not to hire somebody. I know that any Joe Blow with no prior record could one day just flip their switch and pull the same (or similar) stunt, but at least the gun manufacturer would be showing they are trying to be proactive in trying to hire only the best employees for the job.
Back ground checks are a great idea, but not mandated by law. In fact sometimes if your back ground checks “disproportionately” affect minorities, you could be sued for that.
Kahr, you make a great product, please move down to Florida, we would welcome you and provide a fairer legal environment.
Someone has to be at fault. It’s just that the someone at fault had no money. Next please… Oh, he had no money either…. Next please… and down the line to the manufacturer of the weapon involved. Could they have done a background check.. Yes. Should they.. Yes. Did the gun hit the ground and go off on its own or did someones finger pull the trigger? If the gun malfunctioned, blame the manufacturer. If someone pulled the trigger then blame them. Yes the circumstances suck but really how is it the manufacturers fault someone, not in their right mind pulled the trigger of a gun manufactured with no defect? I think that as far as the murder goes, the manufacture has no ownership. As far as the gun being stolen from them by their employee, they need to rethink their employees and how they acquire them.
I think of it like an employee steals a truck from his employers locked yard and runs over a pedestrian at a intersection… What’s the difference?
I have to confess that in reading the comments I couldn’t see how the manufacturer should be held negligent or in any way responsible for the death or the injury. In reading the article however I can see a potential for ‘Negligent Entrustment’. I doesn’t say how long the employee had been employed, what screening the employee had been subject to or how often. Depending on the unknown answers to those questions the manufacurer could have some degree of responsibility.