Smith and Wesson Attempts Suicide, Again

[Kennedy 0]

What the hell is wrong with this company? Between working with people who want to put them out of business, the Clinton HUD agreement, and now this, I wonder if Smith & Wesson doesn't want to go under.

Are their lawyers so inept that they can't see the next fifty lawsuits lining up right now, all cases involving no S&W wrong doing, all encouraged by this settlement?

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/local/crime_courts/11508974.htm

Quote

Gunmaker settles suit with former Wichita family

Lawyers representing a former Wichita boy who suffered brain damage in 1998 when another boy shot him said Wednesday that they had reached a landmark settlement with the gunmaker, Smith & Wesson.

"The settlement marks the first time a gun manufacturer has paid to settle a claim for failing to childproof a gun," said a statement by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, a public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C.

Smith & Wesson said in a statement that "there was no deficiency with this firearm."

"This settlement was dictated by economic and business realities," Ann Makkiya, corporate counsel for the Springfield, Mass., gunmaker, said in the statement.

She said in the statement that the boy, Royce Ryan, "was tragically shot due to the reckless and irresponsible actions of the owner of this firearm." She said the owner left the gun "unattended and failed to take steps to safely store this firearm, in violation of the law."

Lawyers for the Ryan family contend that the shooting was an accident and would not have occurred if the Smith & Wesson Model 915 9 mm pistol had been designed differently. They said they couldn't disclose the settlement amount.

According to the lawyers, Royce, then 8, was accidentally shot in the face on April 15, 1998, while playing with friends. The lawyers say that 15-year-old Jared McMunn took the semiautomatic pistol from his parents' dresser. Thinking it was unloaded, he pulled the trigger, the lawyers said. The gun fired a round left in the chamber, hitting Royce below his left eye.

Royce, who has since moved from Wichita, suffered brain damage and has permanent disabilities, said one of his lawyers, Robert Pottroff.

McMunn was convicted of aggravated battery and possession of a firearm in July 1998 and placed in Juvenile Justice Authority custody, juvenile court records show.

In May 2000, the wounded boy and his mother, Lori Ryan, brought a product liability lawsuit in a state court in Philadelphia against Smith & Wesson. They alleged that the Model 915 had a defective design.

Among their main allegations were that:

• A safety device on the gun didn't keep it from firing with the magazine removed.

• "The gun lacked... a simple device that shows whether a gun is unloaded or there is a bullet in the chamber.

• "The gun was not child-proofed in any way, despite numerous inexpensive designs and technologies readily available."

Lori Ryan said in a statement provided by the lawyers: "We can't prevent Royce's injuries but hope this settlement will help make gun companies childproof guns and prevent other children from being injured. We are thankful that Royce's huge medical needs will now be met."

Pottroff said of Royce Ryan: "He is struggling every day to be just another boy. He tries so hard to be... normal."

Referring to McMunn, the teen who was convicted in the shooting, Pottroff said, "The other real tragedy in this case is, that kid's life has been ruined from that day, too."

McMunn couldn't be reached for comment.

But Makkiya, the Smith & Wesson corporate counsel, said the blame has been misplaced.

"It is the responsibility and legal obligation of every handgun owner to safely store and secure a firearm," she said in the statement.

"This handgun was sold with a lock that would have prevented this shooting, if used."

Regarding the settlement, she said in the statement, "Our insurance carrier made a business decision to settle this lawsuit." The insurer paid the settlement.

"While we respect and understand the insurance carrier's motive for making this decision, it is not an indication that there was any problem with this firearm."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rickjump1 0]

It's like running out of gas in the middle of a thunderstorm at night and killing yourself and your passengers: your wife can always find a lawyer to sue Piper or Cessna. We are in "the dog ate my homework" age. Nobody is responsible for his own actions.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[sinker 0]

this article just makes me recommit to NOT buying S&W products... if they want to commit business suicide, why don't we just help them along?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Kennedy 0]

I made it a point to call them a tell them how much I don't approve, and I faxed them a "less than complimentary letter" with a copy of my Taurus receipt (important info blacked out, of course), just to let them know that it is going to hit them in their pocketbook.

Isn't she a beauty?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[sinker 0]

that is indeed a beaute! I've always liked Taurus, quality stuff generally w/ fairly low prices. Aren't they made in Brazil?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Kennedy 0]

Right on all counts. A damn fine snubbie, at a very decent price, pretty as a picture, and made in a country that wouldn't let me own it.

(just like my future Glock will be)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[sinker 0]

love the tolkien quote... one of my heros. sums up our stance on guns pretty well, doesn't it? if guns were never invented, it would be swords, bows, etc.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[tcnelson 1]

S&W will get exactly what they paid for...

in a sense, they are subsidizing those who can do them the most harm: irresponsible folks with a lawyer.

best o' luck and boy, do i like sig!

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[Alias 0]

"This settlement was dictated by economic and business realities," Ann Makkiya, corporate counsel for the Springfield, Mass., gunmaker, said in the statement.

What a bunch of Shit! Stand your ground!

Carpe Diem

[DrunkMonkey 0]

That settles it, I'm buying Glock.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

and made in a country that wouldn't let me own it.

What's interesting is that foreign companies will have far less leverage than domestic manufacturers to lobby the gov't for gun friendly laws. When the majority of gun purchased in American are manufactured overseas, I suspect there'll be a big change in the gun debate.

It's very dificult for foreign companies to effectively lobby.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[markd_nscr986 0]

Its pretty gutless of them to settle......
and I wont buy anymore of them,not that I was that big a fan of theirs to start with.

When Bill Ruger sold out regarding the 10 rd mag capacity in the early 90's I quit buying Rugers too

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[ladyskydiver 0]

I already own a S&W. However, my next gun purchase will not be a S&W.

**shaking head** I can't believe that they settled. Talk about parents not taking responsibility for ensuring their guns are away from the prying eyes of kids and "kiddy proof". Yesh!!!!

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[Kennedy 0]

It's not likely things would change all that much.

(A) firearms manufacturerscan't contribute that much money because they don't make that much moeny. Their income is not large in the corporate world.

(B) US Military and Law Enforcement contracts would still buy US firearms.

(C) As long as there are four million card carrying NRA members, countless other Americans who agree more or less, and other groups who think the NRA doesn't fight hard enough, politicians will still have plenty of people (and money) telling them to support gun rights over gun control.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

I already own a S&W. However, my next gun purchase will not be a S&W.

**shaking head** I can't believe that they settled. Talk about parents not taking responsibility for ensuring their guns are away from the prying eyes of kids and "kiddy proof". Yesh!!!!

I agree and the best way to show your disapproval of their actions is with your pocket book...::shrugs::...that's the only way companies/businesses get the point......

~R+R...

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"This settlement was dictated by economic and business realities," Ann Makkiya, corporate counsel for the Springfield, Mass., gunmaker, said in the statement.

What a bunch of Shit! Stand your ground!

You guys aren't reading the article very closely. The insurer made the call. It was largely out of the hands of S&W, but I agree it doesn't speak well of them.

Unfortunately, I see the ability to fire without a magazine (useful to me) and the lack of a chamber indicator as vunerabilities in the legal realm. Enough handguns have them that it can be jumped upon as a design defect. Nevermind that anyone that picks up an unknown weapon without checking the chamber and aiming and firing at a friend is unlikely to benefit from such features.

[JohnRich 4]

The critical quote from the article:

"Our insurance carrier made a business decision to settle this lawsuit."

I'm with you on the backlash from hell that will follow from this. It will encourage a spate of more lawsuits, that will bleed them dry.

They should have followed suit with the rest of the gun industry, which bit the bullet and agreed to fight every lawsuit like this to the hilt. They've spent a lot of money on legal fees, but they've won every single case! This, in contrast, discourages more lawsuits.

Smith & Wesson remains stupid, despite their change of management. They should never let their insurance company have that degree of control over their fate.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Unfortunately, I see the ability to fire without a magazine (useful to me) and the lack of a chamber indicator as vunerabilities in the legal realm.

Regarding the magazine safety: this can be a crucial life-saving feature in a self-defense fight. The cops in particular want the ability to fire a round from the chamber, even if the magazine has been removed. In a grapple with a bad guy, the magazine release button might be squeezed, removing the magazine. The officer needs the ability to fire that round in the chamber to save his life. And citizens might need it too. This should not be removed by government mandate - it should be a personal choice for gun owners. If you have kids in the house, you may want the safety feature, but if you use it for self-defense where kids don't have access to it, you may not want it.

As for loaded chamber indicators: anyone dumb enough to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, is also going to be too dumb to know what a loaded-chamber indicator is, what it means, and what to do about it. It's a feel-good feature that accomplishes nothing in real life. We'd be better off training school-age kids about these kinds of things in public education.

[kelpdiver 2]

i'd agree, but I'd bet that the insurance company was worried such arguments would ressonate with a jury and got cold feet. The settlement probably did equal the litigation costs for such a case, even without having to appeal a bad jury decision.

As the gun world fights for liability protection, the other side has been putting a lot of emphasis on making the world believe that these are vital safety features. Might need more effort to counter it before it's taken as gospel like other great facts like gun shows are the bazaar for criminals.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

As the gun world fights for liability protection, the other side has been putting a lot of emphasis on making the world believe that these are vital safety features.

This message is not targetted specifically at you, but rather for the general readership.

The attached photo shows one of the world's first handguns to contain a loaded chamber indicator - the Walther P.38, a German handgun used in WWII.

When that tiny pin protrudes from the rear of the slide, as shown in the red circle, that means there is a round in the chamber.

What dumbass kid that is already pointing a gun at a friend and is about to pull the trigger, is going to know what that little pin means? None of them.

The solution for this is public education. They need to be taught not to do it in the first place. Then mechanical indicators won't even be necessary.

The anti-gun folks seem to think that a flag should pop out of the barrel like in the cartoons. "Bang!" But the reality is, there just isn't enough mechanical movement available to engineer anything dramatic to warn the shooter.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

What dumbass kid that is already pointing a gun at a friend and is about to pull the trigger, is going to know what that little pin means? None of them.

The solution for this is public education.
.

The indicator is for the dumbass parent who removed the clip but left one in the chamber. If a DEA agent can do it then Joe Schmoe is capable and the gun companies know this. So do you.

It's a 100% iron clad certainty that gun owners will continue to leave rounds chambered in guns with a removed clip. The only way to prevent this from happening is the design of the weapons (chambered round indicator and/or clip trigger interlock). It is virtually impossible to prevent this with public education. When you're selling a product that has easily correctable life saving modifications that have been in use for years and someone requires lifelong medical care because you don't make those modifications then you have a product liability problem.

Not that I approve of the lawsuit or the settlement. The dumbass owner of the gun who is largely at fault and the frigging idiot kid that pointed a weapon at someone and pulled the trigger, but the insurance company can settle this and doesn't have to even cover S&W next year. I doubt S&W would have settled given the choice, they'll get saddled with the premiums and the future lawsuits.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

When you're selling a product that has easily correctable life saving modifications that have been in use for years and someone requires lifelong medical care because you don't make those modifications then you have a product liability problem.

You do understand why people don't want that feature on their defense firearm, right?

You understand that many police agencies refuse to purchase firearms with that feature, right?

-The gun was sold with a lock that would've prevented this accident. -There are other models available that had the extra safety feature.
-The NRA offers tailored education to all ages

The gun owner had every tool available to prevent this tragedy and chose to use none of them. There is no way this could've com e down against them. They handed victory over to the peole filing these abusive lawsuits.

They don't expect to win any of these suits, they just want to make legal fees so costly that companies give in or go under. And once again, Smith & Wesson was the company with the poor logic, weak stomach, and missing spine.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The anti-gun folks seem to think that a flag should pop out of the barrel like in the cartoons. "Bang!" But the reality is, there just isn't enough mechanical movement available to engineer anything dramatic to warn the shooter.

I think they want a big flashing neon sign that says "I'm evil, don't touch me," whether the chamber is loaded or not.

Hoestly, what are they looking for?

I got my hands on a Ruger KP345. see attached

It has the most obvious loaded indicator I've ever seen or heard about. see pic 2

Well, I loaded in a dummy round and inserted a fake magazine. Then I handed it to a 12 year old who doesn't know barrel from bullet, and is unfortunately related to me. I asked him if it had a bullet in it.
(he didn't know what I meant when I said "round" and "cartridge")

He couldn't tell me. He also didn't know he could pull the slide back just a little to find out the old fashion way. Yeah, sheltering him from guns definitely made him safer in the real world.

In case you can't see it in the picture, the LCI has two large red spots and says "LOADED." It sticks up at least an 1/8 of an inch, probably more.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dorbie 0]

It doesn't matter what I understand, I wouldn't have been on the jury.

Other products available with the missing safety features is a double edged sword that raises an obvious question.

A Jury might have seen removing the clip as one way (however flawed in this instance) of disarming a weapon.

The spinelessness was on the part of the insurance company who can walk away when the dust settles.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

I got my hands on a Ruger KP345. see attached

Looks deceptively like a toy gun, no wonder the kid picked it up.