HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Knight Loses Lawsuit- Jury Awards 2.1 Million
Old 03-10-2010, 09:55 PM
  #28  
arcticap
Typical Buck
 
arcticap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Central Connecticut
Posts: 766
Default

If Knight had liability insurance like most manufacturers than they won't be paying the lawsuit damages anyway. Those would be paid for by the insurance company that probably also represented them in court.
The jury was suppose to examine the facts from the point of view of an average person taking product liability issues into account with the guidance of a judge during a fair fact finding trial.
They were given facts that we don't have.
It's just like if someone is accidentally shot on gun club property and then the gun club will get sued and the insurance company will pay for any damages that are awarded and provide a lawyer too.
It's in the insurance contract and that's why insurance companies collect billions of dollars to pay for claims. And they still make tons of profits just because every business and property owner usually always have insurance.
When these kinds of accidents happen the jury often feels sympathy for the injured party and try to make an award because they know that the insurance company will appeal it anyway.
If the jury decided correctly then the decision won't be overturned. Meanwhile the injured party suffers whether it was caused by the company omitting printing a warning in the owner's manual or not.
But in no way do I think that there should be a class required to buy a muzzle loader. That restricts people's rights to buy BP guns under the 2nd Amendment that aren't restricted right now in most states. That's not even required in New York City to buy a flintlock.
These types of accidents are pretty far and few between. Why make everyone lose their current unrestricted rights because of the actions of a few?
Let the courts and the insurance companies handle it and leave the laws just the way they are.
I have a hard time believing that any folks would want to require a license for purchasing muzzle loaders just because they don't agree with a jury's decision in a product liability suit. That's gun control that we can all live without.
If anyone wants to teach their family and friends how to avoid accidents then that's the way to go. Maybe the muzzle loader companies can do a better job of writing more comprehensive safety manuals.
After all it's their product and their obligation to provide clear instructions on the safe use of their guns.
Then it wouldn't be necessary to require a license to purchase a BP gun because most folks know how to read and then their lawsuits wouldn't have a chance to succeed.

Last edited by arcticap; 03-10-2010 at 10:04 PM.
arcticap is offline