Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« England cracks down on SAS veteran | Main | Fast and Furious sentencings »

Court slaps sanctions on atty who sued gun maker

Posted by David Hardy · 26 November 2012 04:38 PM

It's a 34 page scanned pdf, so it is both detailed and slow to download. Reading the earliest versions of what happened, or was alleged to have happened, I find them incomprehensible. Bullets coming out of the trigger guard or the side of the gun? Then he changes to an out-of-battery discharge, but even that doesn't hold up.

The judge doesn't fix a number, but orders the defense to file its documents on attorney fees (with a hint that they shouldn't be tempted to pad things out). I suspect this will be a VERY expensive mistake.

· Gun manufacturer liability

5 Comments | Leave a comment

SPQR | November 26, 2012 7:12 PM | Reply

Its never said, but it sure looks like the judge is convinced that the plaintiff intentionally damages the gun post-accident.

James | November 26, 2012 11:47 PM | Reply

Reading through the whole case, I'm not a lawyer, but the judges repeatedly note that the lawyer being sanctioned not only failed to do due diligence about investigating whether a failure of the type he described was possible, but he continued to pursue that claim after it was fairly solidly refuted by the defendant's expert witnesses, and even undermined his own expert witnesses by failing to provide them with adequate explanations of what was claimed to have happened or of what the defendant's proposed might have happened (namely, that the physical damage to the pistol was consistent with the damage done by shooting a pistol with another gun, with the pictures submitted by the defendants matching the actual evidence gun so closely that the plaintiff's expert witness thought they were just pictures of it).

The medical evidence would also support this theory, since the wound was a through-and-through injury with no mention of stippling or fragments of bullet or case, as would normally be expected in an out-of-battery discharge or close range self-inflicted gunshot. That the plaintiff's lawyer didn't even refer to an expert witness on gunshot wounds to determine whether his client's story matched the evidence would just be further evidence that he failed to exercise due diligence under Rule 11 in his filings.

Jeff | November 27, 2012 7:50 AM | Reply

If judges have to write so much to justify sanctions, it's no wonder that it happens so seldom!

James | November 27, 2012 7:52 AM | Reply

I'm particularly sensitive to failures to exercise due diligence right now, a major client is undergoing an IT audit right now after a change in management, and the auditing firm has been making claims that the client does not need to upgrade server capacity to support new requirements without ever actually reviewing the actual configuration or utilization of the existing servers. So for the past two weeks I've been having to deal with vendors and generating capacity reports to support the requested upgrades and demonstrate that our company is properly managing the client's resources, on top of my normal workload.

doa solat Dhuha | November 30, 2012 6:54 PM | Reply

If you are going for finest contents like I do, simply pay a quick
visit this site daily because it presents quality contents,
thanks

Leave a comment