….in this country. How pathetic could you be to attempt to sue b/c of your own negligence. This guy clearly made no efforts to safeguard his family, then has the nerve to sue Beretta b/c he was too stupid to put a trigger lock on or keep this in a gun safe. Also keeping a round chambered isn’t exactly the brightest move.
Typical lowlife trying to get rich off a tragedy when it could’ve been easily avoided to begin with.
People need to take some responsibility for their actions. Its no wonder this country is in the dump right now.
The way I see it – it’s the Gun manufacturer’s fault too. It’s a fact that gun companies make products that are dangerous (especially in the hands of children/untrained to handle guns). In non-gun instances the manufacturers can be held liabile for their harmful products –
cigarette companies are being held liabile for the harm their product causes, companies held responsible for lead paint toys, etc… – I just don’t see why gun companies shouldn’t be held to the same standard. In this specific case, the gun should have been inaccessable to the kids, round not chanbered, etc… All That said, if the gun manufacturers were liable for accidental shootings, I gurantee you there would be safeguards in-place that would reduce the number of them.
Unfortunalte, sir, I must disagree. If we follow your logic then auto makers would be responsible for drivers not driving their cars safely. Baseball manufacturers would be responsible for every broken window. Paper mills would be responsible for every papercut.
Guns are not dangerous if handled and secured properly. There was nothing wrong with the manufacture of the gun; the fault lies solely with the parties responsible for little Billy Swan and the gun he played with.
Darth:
I hope you are kidding. I am a gun owner and I am responsible for the safeguarding of my guns so my son and his friends do not “play” with them. Following your logic, the car companies should be held liable for drunk driving accidents because they do not install devices that prevent a car from being started if the driver is intoxicated. In both situations, there is a personal responsibility, lock up your guns and not drive drunk. I am glad the court got this right.
The difference here is that gun companies have never denied the dangers of guns. Toy companies were held responsible for lead paint because a consumer should rightfully believe a toy is safe for their child. Cigarette companies once advertised their products as safe, and even good for you. Guns are dangerous, and gun companies admit the dangers. Buying a gun is accepting the responsibility for that danger, and the company should not be held liable.
The court should have issued a stronger opinion addressing the root cause. Something like this would work nicely. ” The plaintiff’s own wilfull and wanton disregard for the safety of his family constitutes gross negligence and is the sole cause of this tragedgy. He is an irresponsible idiot as is his attorney for accepting a non-meritorious case. It’s time for people to accept responsibility instead of looking elsewhere.” What’s next…..suing car manufacturers for traffic deaths?
Only when we again become responsible citizens, as the makers and shakers of this great nation, will we return to the glory that has defined our unique nation. Too many uneducated crybabies like this dad dominate our culture.
Man up, Bud. YOU are solely responsible for your son’s death.
David Leckrone, Appomattox, VA
The Supreme Court made the correct decision. However, many of you are accusing this poor man of being the idiot who owned and improperly stored the gun. Re-read the article, he did not own the gun. The gun was owned by Mr. Swan, the father of Billy Swan the kid who fired the gun.
This man is merely guilty of suing the wrong party….although we do not know if he did sue the correct party as well based on this article.
The plaintiffs here did not allege a manufacturing defect (malfunction, etc.) or a failure to warn (gun safety is known, publicized and should be followed). They allege a design defect, the third theory of product liablity. Design defect contends that the design of the product is flawed, and if not for that design, the injury would not have occurred. Whether or not it is a typical gun manufacturing design to allow discharge of rounds in the chamber when magazine is removed, the court had to decide if it was reasonable for manufacturers to anticipate that occurrence and whether a reasonable design change exists. The court (and most of you) apparently see that there is no reasonable design change, or need for one. The court did not need to reach the issues of personal responsibility or manufacturing defects, as they were not alleged, and the claimant was not the gun owner, but the parent of the victim.
….in this country. How pathetic could you be to attempt to sue b/c of your own negligence. This guy clearly made no efforts to safeguard his family, then has the nerve to sue Beretta b/c he was too stupid to put a trigger lock on or keep this in a gun safe. Also keeping a round chambered isn’t exactly the brightest move.
Typical lowlife trying to get rich off a tragedy when it could’ve been easily avoided to begin with.
People need to take some responsibility for their actions. Its no wonder this country is in the dump right now.
The Supremem Court made the right decision. The only person at fault was the person who failed to secure the firearm.
SCOTUS made the right decision in this case. I hope we can expect more of these common sense decisions coming down in the future.
The way I see it – it’s the Gun manufacturer’s fault too. It’s a fact that gun companies make products that are dangerous (especially in the hands of children/untrained to handle guns). In non-gun instances the manufacturers can be held liabile for their harmful products –
cigarette companies are being held liabile for the harm their product causes, companies held responsible for lead paint toys, etc… – I just don’t see why gun companies shouldn’t be held to the same standard. In this specific case, the gun should have been inaccessable to the kids, round not chanbered, etc… All That said, if the gun manufacturers were liable for accidental shootings, I gurantee you there would be safeguards in-place that would reduce the number of them.
The Supreme Court made the right call on this one. I hope they continue to do so.
Unfortunalte, sir, I must disagree. If we follow your logic then auto makers would be responsible for drivers not driving their cars safely. Baseball manufacturers would be responsible for every broken window. Paper mills would be responsible for every papercut.
Guns are not dangerous if handled and secured properly. There was nothing wrong with the manufacture of the gun; the fault lies solely with the parties responsible for little Billy Swan and the gun he played with.
Darth:
I hope you are kidding. I am a gun owner and I am responsible for the safeguarding of my guns so my son and his friends do not “play” with them. Following your logic, the car companies should be held liable for drunk driving accidents because they do not install devices that prevent a car from being started if the driver is intoxicated. In both situations, there is a personal responsibility, lock up your guns and not drive drunk. I am glad the court got this right.
The difference here is that gun companies have never denied the dangers of guns. Toy companies were held responsible for lead paint because a consumer should rightfully believe a toy is safe for their child. Cigarette companies once advertised their products as safe, and even good for you. Guns are dangerous, and gun companies admit the dangers. Buying a gun is accepting the responsibility for that danger, and the company should not be held liable.
Like the others..
Gun companies have never claimed their products are safe. In fact most stand by the LETHALITY and DANGEROUS nature of their weapons.
Gun =/= Toy
The owner of the gun is the one most at fault. Who in their right mind keeps a round in the chamber?
The court should have issued a stronger opinion addressing the root cause. Something like this would work nicely. ” The plaintiff’s own wilfull and wanton disregard for the safety of his family constitutes gross negligence and is the sole cause of this tragedgy. He is an irresponsible idiot as is his attorney for accepting a non-meritorious case. It’s time for people to accept responsibility instead of looking elsewhere.” What’s next…..suing car manufacturers for traffic deaths?
Only when we again become responsible citizens, as the makers and shakers of this great nation, will we return to the glory that has defined our unique nation. Too many uneducated crybabies like this dad dominate our culture.
Man up, Bud. YOU are solely responsible for your son’s death.
David Leckrone, Appomattox, VA
@ shaking my head, Take a bow. My thoughts exactly.
The Supreme Court made the correct decision. However, many of you are accusing this poor man of being the idiot who owned and improperly stored the gun. Re-read the article, he did not own the gun. The gun was owned by Mr. Swan, the father of Billy Swan the kid who fired the gun.
This man is merely guilty of suing the wrong party….although we do not know if he did sue the correct party as well based on this article.
The plaintiffs here did not allege a manufacturing defect (malfunction, etc.) or a failure to warn (gun safety is known, publicized and should be followed). They allege a design defect, the third theory of product liablity. Design defect contends that the design of the product is flawed, and if not for that design, the injury would not have occurred. Whether or not it is a typical gun manufacturing design to allow discharge of rounds in the chamber when magazine is removed, the court had to decide if it was reasonable for manufacturers to anticipate that occurrence and whether a reasonable design change exists. The court (and most of you) apparently see that there is no reasonable design change, or need for one. The court did not need to reach the issues of personal responsibility or manufacturing defects, as they were not alleged, and the claimant was not the gun owner, but the parent of the victim.