Thats rediculous, why should he go after Walmart?? They didnt force him too go in the store too Buy the gun..Yes against the maker of the gun and the bullet manufacture I can see, but Walmart had Nothing too do with the firing of that weapon..Just another example of someone going after Walmart..Seeing Dollar signs are we?? People get a life, theirs other bussinesses out there…
Haven’t you been paying attention? The new trend in US PI litigation is to sue anyone with pockets who has ever touched any part of the item that “caused” the injury.
Subsequent suits to follow are:
The frieght companies that transported the rifle and ammunition.
The steel company that made the bar stock that was used to make the rifle.
The National Forrest Service who was in charge of the tree used to make the rifle’s wood stock.
The stock person who unpacked the box and merchandised the rifle.
…and in a suprising turn of events… James Monette plans to sue himself just to make sure everyone who touched it pays their fair share.
As far is it being ridiculous to sue Wal-Mart — If this incident had occurred in 1908 instead of 2008, Wal-Mart would have been the only party named in the lawsuit.
At that time, neither Mossberg or Remington could be held liable because neither of them had any direct dealings with Mr. Monette.
Even today, merchants have a duty to inspect the goods they have available for sale, even if they didn’t manufacture them. The extent of this duty is determined by feasibility of inspection and reason to suspect a defect.
Firearms are generally sold from a locked case, and a single big-box retail store usually does not have too many in stock. I don’t think it is infeasible for the sporting goods manager of a Wal-Mart store to look over every rifle as it is stocked and maintain inspection records. If this wasn’t done, depending on the judge, wal-mart could be held partially liable for injuries caused by a faulty product.
Wal-Mart will force their defence onto Mossberg and Remington. Wal-Mart requires all suppliers to name them as additional insured. They know their risk management.
I don’t think Walmart should have any part of this suit. My guess is that this guy was doing something stupid with his gun and it back fired on him (no pun intended), and now he wants someone to pay for his mistake. Notice how it doesn’t mention what caused the gun to misfire and explode, pretty convenient don’t you think?
Since the injury occured only to his hand and did not appear to include his face, the location of the explosion was most likely in the barrel down near the forestock where one would normally steady the weapon with the non-trigger hand. (If it was the firing hand injured the same basic scenarios would apply as well)
This type of catastrophic failure is usually caused by either over-pressurization within the barrel related to ammunition or as a result of a manufacturing defect in the barrel.
The defect could be related to the machining process when the barrel was made and the tolerances within the interior of the barrel were out of spec and not caught on final inspection (unlikely since all weapons are test-fired at the factory)or as a result of poor metalergy when the barrel/breech was forged.
The other possible cause (most likely IMHO) is ammunition related. If the injured man was firing non-factory ammunition (hand loaded in other words) it is possible that the round fired was loaded too hot (too much powder)and when fired caused over-pressurization in the barrel causing it to explode. Or a factory loaded cartridge was loaded too hot (not as likely given QC at ammo mfg) causing the same result.
A third possible scenario is that a foreign object (dirt, mud, cleaning patches etc…) was lodged in the barrel causing over-pressurization on firing.
In either of the first two scenarios the Sporting Goods Mgr. would be unable to identify the defect even if they had performed a detailed inspection of the weapon prior to sale. The third would be more obvious to anyone trained in proper handling of a firearm and is more common among hunters who foul the barrel unintentionally and unknowingly while tramping through the woods.
It will be interesting to see if this guy has other firearms at home and if he has any history of using hand loaded ammunition as I suspect that will be a major focal point n the case.
Nope — not a plaintiff’s attorney. P&C actuary who needed to study the history of Products Liability law to pass one of the certification exams.
I wasn’t saying Wal-Mart could have prevented the accident. All I was saying was that naming them in the suit is not as ridiculous as it sounds at first.
I agree with Ratemaker. The ambulance chaser, excuse me (attorney) who took the case would have suggested who the plaintiffs should be. Suits follow money. Wal-Mart is unlikely on this one, although they certainly have many things they should be sued or boycotted over, however, this is probably not one of them.
“Wal-Mart is unlikely on this one, although they certainly have many things they should be sued or boycotted over, however, this is probably not one of them.”
Yeah, those evil Wal-Marts save me thousands of dollars a year. Boycott them in favor of higher prices! Vote Obama!
Wal-Mart should file a motion-to-dismiss. This is a products case. It exercised no control over the manufacture of the weapon or the ammo. What “duty owed” to the purchaser was breached? Absent that duty there is no liability. Sounds good, but anything is possible with our bastardized legal system. The more defendants the merrier.
did the writer of this story mean to say: “cartridge manufacturer”?
a cartridge is a loaded round of ammo, including bullet (projectile), case, primer, and powder.
a bullet is the projectile that goes down the barrel. Remington sells loaded “ammunition” and also makes “bullets”.
like mentioned in earlier comments, there is a lot more to this story that you see in this very limited (and inaccurate?) article.
fairly unlikely a new firearm will “explode” due to faulty manufacturing. most likely there was contributory “negligence” (aka: stupidity) on the part of the shooter.
What they’re not telling you in the IJ article (no surprise) is:
James Monette bought the Mossberg 100 ATR 30-06 Springfield hunting rifle as a Christmas present for his son in 2005, according to court documents.
While elk hunting in October 2006, Monette was handing the rifle to his son when “it misfired and the bolt action exploded sending parts (including the rifle’s bolt) and fragments into Monette’s right hand causing severe injuries …” according to the complaint filed in district court Oct. 21.
Which means – they had the weapon almost an entire year – and you can’t tell me that they never fired the thing before the October 06 incident. The ammo may have been old – mishandled or stored incorrectly, or the gun could have been taken apart at some point during cleaning and not reassembled correctly
There is something else to the story that no one is going to find out without more digging – and the IJ is famous for reporting only a portion of the info they find from other news agencies.
The report also indicates two other men with simlar experiences..
Besides, I’m convinced this guy lives in the middle of nowhere surrounded by barbed wire and has a stash of guns hidden under the floor boards of the outhouse… Can you say Coeur d’Alene?
He’s only asking for an amount over $10,000? That doesn’t sound like alot, unless over $10,000 means over $10 million. Heck, I’ll just pay it out of my pocket just to shut you all up. Until you know the facts about a case, don’t say they’re greedy, etc… Also, if you’ve never dealt with Wal-mart on the insurance side, then again, don’t comment unless it’s a question. Wal-Mart asks everyone to list them as an additional insured. Wal-Mart will not have to defend themselves at all. It all goes back to either the gun manufacturer or the ammo manufacturer. Either way Wal-Mart is fine and the $10,000 or so is nothing.
-Signed-Ex CEO that ran your company into the ground and you, the taxpayer, is paying for it. hahahaha I love the Bahamas!!
Chris, Just wait until Obama and the Repo administration (Reed, Pelosi & Obama) work on gun control. There will be no second amendment, which I can tell will not hurt your feelings. By the way good for you in your parachute severence. I am sure you are very highly educated and top of your class, probably have had a fantastic career with many accolades to get such a high position with a fortune 500 public company. You know everyone is paid exactly what they are worth. Tiger woods to Warren Buffet to Oprah to CEO’s on Wallstreet. If they did not produce a result at some point they would not be paid that much. Thats economics. I am glad our government does not set all our salaries based on what we do. If so all our union employees would have to take a huge pay cut for leaning on their brooms.
Please send me your address in the Bahamas so I can track you down and kick your a s s . Your comment wasn’t funny and your post was most condescending.
I am sure that Walmart has both indemnification agreements running in its favor and requires manufacturers to have the company named as an additional insured on the manufacturers policies so Walmart will be set here but I think the comments here are scary in that I assume most people reading this web site are involved in the P&C industry in some fashion such as agent, underwriter, marketing or claims and yet people seem shocked that a retail outlet can be held strictly liable for products it sells even if the retailer does nothing more than sell something sealed at the factory. I am shocked because strict liability has been the law in most of the country for decades but still the comments here express both outrage (which may be justified) and surprise(which is shocking coming from insurance professionals). It is upsetting as it makes me wonder how many people in the insurance industry really understand what their product covers and what the customer’s exposure is.
Thats rediculous, why should he go after Walmart?? They didnt force him too go in the store too Buy the gun..Yes against the maker of the gun and the bullet manufacture I can see, but Walmart had Nothing too do with the firing of that weapon..Just another example of someone going after Walmart..Seeing Dollar signs are we?? People get a life, theirs other bussinesses out there…
Haven’t you been paying attention? The new trend in US PI litigation is to sue anyone with pockets who has ever touched any part of the item that “caused” the injury.
Subsequent suits to follow are:
The frieght companies that transported the rifle and ammunition.
The steel company that made the bar stock that was used to make the rifle.
The National Forrest Service who was in charge of the tree used to make the rifle’s wood stock.
The stock person who unpacked the box and merchandised the rifle.
…and in a suprising turn of events… James Monette plans to sue himself just to make sure everyone who touched it pays their fair share.
As far is it being ridiculous to sue Wal-Mart — If this incident had occurred in 1908 instead of 2008, Wal-Mart would have been the only party named in the lawsuit.
At that time, neither Mossberg or Remington could be held liable because neither of them had any direct dealings with Mr. Monette.
Even today, merchants have a duty to inspect the goods they have available for sale, even if they didn’t manufacture them. The extent of this duty is determined by feasibility of inspection and reason to suspect a defect.
Firearms are generally sold from a locked case, and a single big-box retail store usually does not have too many in stock. I don’t think it is infeasible for the sporting goods manager of a Wal-Mart store to look over every rifle as it is stocked and maintain inspection records. If this wasn’t done, depending on the judge, wal-mart could be held partially liable for injuries caused by a faulty product.
Wal-Mart will force their defence onto Mossberg and Remington. Wal-Mart requires all suppliers to name them as additional insured. They know their risk management.
Bob is exactly right.
I don’t think Walmart should have any part of this suit. My guess is that this guy was doing something stupid with his gun and it back fired on him (no pun intended), and now he wants someone to pay for his mistake. Notice how it doesn’t mention what caused the gun to misfire and explode, pretty convenient don’t you think?
Let me guess; You’re a PI lawyer?
Since the injury occured only to his hand and did not appear to include his face, the location of the explosion was most likely in the barrel down near the forestock where one would normally steady the weapon with the non-trigger hand. (If it was the firing hand injured the same basic scenarios would apply as well)
This type of catastrophic failure is usually caused by either over-pressurization within the barrel related to ammunition or as a result of a manufacturing defect in the barrel.
The defect could be related to the machining process when the barrel was made and the tolerances within the interior of the barrel were out of spec and not caught on final inspection (unlikely since all weapons are test-fired at the factory)or as a result of poor metalergy when the barrel/breech was forged.
The other possible cause (most likely IMHO) is ammunition related. If the injured man was firing non-factory ammunition (hand loaded in other words) it is possible that the round fired was loaded too hot (too much powder)and when fired caused over-pressurization in the barrel causing it to explode. Or a factory loaded cartridge was loaded too hot (not as likely given QC at ammo mfg) causing the same result.
A third possible scenario is that a foreign object (dirt, mud, cleaning patches etc…) was lodged in the barrel causing over-pressurization on firing.
In either of the first two scenarios the Sporting Goods Mgr. would be unable to identify the defect even if they had performed a detailed inspection of the weapon prior to sale. The third would be more obvious to anyone trained in proper handling of a firearm and is more common among hunters who foul the barrel unintentionally and unknowingly while tramping through the woods.
It will be interesting to see if this guy has other firearms at home and if he has any history of using hand loaded ammunition as I suspect that will be a major focal point n the case.
This is a products liability case and only Mossberg and the ammunition manufacturer should be involved.
Nope — not a plaintiff’s attorney. P&C actuary who needed to study the history of Products Liability law to pass one of the certification exams.
I wasn’t saying Wal-Mart could have prevented the accident. All I was saying was that naming them in the suit is not as ridiculous as it sounds at first.
I agree with Ratemaker. The ambulance chaser, excuse me (attorney) who took the case would have suggested who the plaintiffs should be. Suits follow money. Wal-Mart is unlikely on this one, although they certainly have many things they should be sued or boycotted over, however, this is probably not one of them.
“Wal-Mart is unlikely on this one, although they certainly have many things they should be sued or boycotted over, however, this is probably not one of them.”
Yeah, those evil Wal-Marts save me thousands of dollars a year. Boycott them in favor of higher prices! Vote Obama!
Wal-Mart should file a motion-to-dismiss. This is a products case. It exercised no control over the manufacture of the weapon or the ammo. What “duty owed” to the purchaser was breached? Absent that duty there is no liability. Sounds good, but anything is possible with our bastardized legal system. The more defendants the merrier.
did the writer of this story mean to say: “cartridge manufacturer”?
a cartridge is a loaded round of ammo, including bullet (projectile), case, primer, and powder.
a bullet is the projectile that goes down the barrel. Remington sells loaded “ammunition” and also makes “bullets”.
like mentioned in earlier comments, there is a lot more to this story that you see in this very limited (and inaccurate?) article.
fairly unlikely a new firearm will “explode” due to faulty manufacturing. most likely there was contributory “negligence” (aka: stupidity) on the part of the shooter.
What they’re not telling you in the IJ article (no surprise) is:
James Monette bought the Mossberg 100 ATR 30-06 Springfield hunting rifle as a Christmas present for his son in 2005, according to court documents.
While elk hunting in October 2006, Monette was handing the rifle to his son when “it misfired and the bolt action exploded sending parts (including the rifle’s bolt) and fragments into Monette’s right hand causing severe injuries …” according to the complaint filed in district court Oct. 21.
Which means – they had the weapon almost an entire year – and you can’t tell me that they never fired the thing before the October 06 incident. The ammo may have been old – mishandled or stored incorrectly, or the gun could have been taken apart at some point during cleaning and not reassembled correctly
There is something else to the story that no one is going to find out without more digging – and the IJ is famous for reporting only a portion of the info they find from other news agencies.
The report also indicates two other men with simlar experiences..
Besides, I’m convinced this guy lives in the middle of nowhere surrounded by barbed wire and has a stash of guns hidden under the floor boards of the outhouse… Can you say Coeur d’Alene?
He’s only asking for an amount over $10,000? That doesn’t sound like alot, unless over $10,000 means over $10 million. Heck, I’ll just pay it out of my pocket just to shut you all up. Until you know the facts about a case, don’t say they’re greedy, etc… Also, if you’ve never dealt with Wal-mart on the insurance side, then again, don’t comment unless it’s a question. Wal-Mart asks everyone to list them as an additional insured. Wal-Mart will not have to defend themselves at all. It all goes back to either the gun manufacturer or the ammo manufacturer. Either way Wal-Mart is fine and the $10,000 or so is nothing.
-Signed-Ex CEO that ran your company into the ground and you, the taxpayer, is paying for it. hahahaha I love the Bahamas!!
Chris, Just wait until Obama and the Repo administration (Reed, Pelosi & Obama) work on gun control. There will be no second amendment, which I can tell will not hurt your feelings. By the way good for you in your parachute severence. I am sure you are very highly educated and top of your class, probably have had a fantastic career with many accolades to get such a high position with a fortune 500 public company. You know everyone is paid exactly what they are worth. Tiger woods to Warren Buffet to Oprah to CEO’s on Wallstreet. If they did not produce a result at some point they would not be paid that much. Thats economics. I am glad our government does not set all our salaries based on what we do. If so all our union employees would have to take a huge pay cut for leaning on their brooms.
Please send me your address in the Bahamas so I can track you down and kick your a s s . Your comment wasn’t funny and your post was most condescending.
I thought Chris’s comment was very funny.lmao !!
I am sure that Walmart has both indemnification agreements running in its favor and requires manufacturers to have the company named as an additional insured on the manufacturers policies so Walmart will be set here but I think the comments here are scary in that I assume most people reading this web site are involved in the P&C industry in some fashion such as agent, underwriter, marketing or claims and yet people seem shocked that a retail outlet can be held strictly liable for products it sells even if the retailer does nothing more than sell something sealed at the factory. I am shocked because strict liability has been the law in most of the country for decades but still the comments here express both outrage (which may be justified) and surprise(which is shocking coming from insurance professionals). It is upsetting as it makes me wonder how many people in the insurance industry really understand what their product covers and what the customer’s exposure is.