S&W Revolver lawsuit

What a goddam tool! Maybe we can make a group buy on this gun and send it to him, or buy the one Flotter probably owns already:

gun20for20suicideon8.jpg
 
Last edited:
Note that he bought it on December 21 and injured himself on December 27th.

RTFMA!!! Which is normally translated as Read The Manual, Sir... but not this time. [rolleyes]

Whiner: Guh-Buh-Wuh... you never told me it could cut off my THUMB!!
S&W: Well, that's because we never thought anyone would be stupid enough to hold it that way.
 
Sheesh! Have you seen the S&W manuals? The first 4 pages are warnings of what NOT to do in big red letters with drawings and pictures. The M&P one even warned about slide-bite. I'm sure this one told him to keep his hands away from the front of the cylinder.

What a dumb-a$$
 
From the manual (page 19 - emphasis mine):
WARNING: ALWAYS KEEP YOUR FINGERS AWAY
FROM THE AREA BETWEEN THE CYLINDER AND
THE BARREL DURING FIRING. PARTICLES AND HOT
GAS WILL BE FORCED OUT FROM BETWEEN THE BARREL
AND CYLINDER IN ANY REVOLVER DURING NORMAL USE.
FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS WARNING WILL CAUSE SERIOUS
PERSONAL INJURY.
• Always use the proper grip as shown for a two-hand hold
(Figures 11 & 12). This keeps hands and fingers away from
the barrel/cylinder gap.
• Never allow hands or fingers to extend beyond the front of the
cylinder when firing (Figures 13 & 14). This is an improper
hold for any revolver.
Click to expand...


RTFM
 
If I had the time I'd write them a letter letting them know how stupid the entire gun community believes they are...
 
This kind of "report" always brings back memories of hot coffee at McDonalds...tell me what temp. you want it...better yet, let me hold it for you, and test it....forget that I'll just drink it all for you so you won't get burned. [rolleyes]
 
packingungal said:
This kind of "report" always brings back memories of hot coffee at McDonalds...tell me what temp. you want it...better yet, let me hold it for you, and test it....forget that I'll just drink it all for you so you won't get burned. [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

Sad thing is I'm in the insurance industry & conduct training classes on products liability issues. The above (unfortunatly) is a classic example of failure to warn. The woman paid for her coffee, opened it, put the top back on half-arsed, put the cup between her knees and drove off - which, of course, caused it to spill all over her - and won on the theory that the store failed to warn her the coffee was about 10 degrees hotter then normal.

All they have to do is establish the product is 'defective' i.e. doesn't meet the warranty of fitness. Warnings and labels are included. If the product is deemed 'defective' then the stupidity of the user can't be used to mitigate the situation.

Happily, I don't see any defect here in either the product or the warnings. That proves the second point I like to make: Anyone can sue anyone for anything. They may not be able to WIN but they can still make you spend money trying to defend yourself.
 
EddieCoyle said:
From the manual (page 19 - emphasis mine):
[/COLOR]

RTFM
Click to expand...

No. I will not read the manual. When something goes wrong, I'll sue for manufacturing defects or a defective/unsafe product! Screw being smart. I want to play dumb and profit off my stupidity!
 
Bob P said:
Sad thing is I'm in the insurance industry & conduct training classes on products liability issues. The above (unfortunatly [sic]) is a classic example of failure to warn. The woman paid for her coffee, opened it, put the top back on half-arsed, put the cup between her knees and drove off - which, of course, caused it to spill all over her - and won on the theory that the store failed to warn her the coffee was about 10 degrees hotter then normal..
Click to expand...

Utter, total and complete CRAP. [slap]

As anyone who knows ANY of the facts of that case is well aware - and it's been discussed here before - your assertions are patently false. If you truly are " in the insurance industry & conduct training classes on products liability issues," there is no excuse for you not knowing those facts, still less pontificating upon them with such ignorance.

Here - get a clue:

"The woman paid for her coffee, opened it, put the top back on half-arsed, put the cup between her knees and drove off"

BS.

FACT 1: The car was not only parked, she wasn't even the driver. Her DAUGHTER was driving and PARKED the car to go back in for the cream and sugar not put in the bag.

FACT 2. She was scalded getting the lid off while the car was PARKED.

FACT 3. McDonalds had ample knowledge that its coffee was far too hot for its intended use - customers drinking it while driving - due to the number of PRIOR scalding incidents.

FACT 4. McDonalds refused to lower the temperature of its coffee, despite all those incidents.

FACT 5. The victim in this case was scalded so severely, she had second and third-degree burns from the coffee.

FACT 6. All the victim in this case originally sought was compensation for her medical costs.

FACT 7. Displaying the same arrogant disregard manifested by selling overly-hot coffee in the face of such incidents, McDonalds REFUSED to compensate this victim merely for her medical costs. Hence the lawsuit.

Thanks for sharing all your expertise..... [rolleyes]
 
Last edited:
And in case you don't believe Scrivener, let's confuse the issue some more.


TrueStellaAwards.com said:
Much of the coverage about Stella Liebeck has been grossly unfair. When you have a more complete summary of the facts, you might change your mind about her. Or maybe not -- that's up to you. Did you know the following aspects of the Stella vs. McDonald's case?

Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup.

Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.

McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.

Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.

While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded.

But...

The resulting $640,000 isn't the end either. Liebeck and McDonald's entered into secret settlement negotiations rather than go to appeal. The amount of the settlement is not known -- it's secret!

The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions?

And...

Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?
Click to expand...
 
Can we not turn this into another thread paying homage to the coffee scalding queen? There are only 48 of them on the board already. [grin]

-Mike
 
As far as this goes, I hope S+W says "wah too bad you are an idiot" and pushes the issue hard, and doesn't end up throwing cash at them to make them
go away.

I will be really, really pissed, if this kind of crap results in stupid warnings
getting printed on the side of the revolvers. I doubt S+W will do that,
though, but it still concerns me.

-Mike
 
Scrivener said:
Utter, total and complete CRAP. [slap]

As anyone who knows ANY of the facts of that case is well aware - and it's been discussed here before - your assertions are patently false. If you truly are " in the insurance industry & conduct training classes on products liability issues," there is no excuse for you not knowing those facts, still less pontificating upon them with such ignorance.

Here - get a clue:

"The woman paid for her coffee, opened it, put the top back on half-arsed, put the cup between her knees and drove off"

BS.

FACT 1: The car was not only parked, she wasn't even the driver. Her DAUGHTER was driving and PARKED the car to go back in for the cream and sugar not put in the bag.

FACT 2. She was scalded getting the lid off while the car was PARKED.

FACT 3. McDonalds had ample knowledge that its coffee was far too hot for its intended use - customers drinking it while driving - due to the number of PRIOR scalding incidents.

FACT 4. McDonalds refused to lower the temperature of its coffee, despite all those incidents.

FACT 5. The victim in this case was scalded so severely, she had second and third-degree burns from the coffee.

FACT 6. All the victim in this case originally sought was compensation for her medical costs.

FACT 7. Displaying the same arrogant disregard manifested by selling overly-hot coffee in the face of such incidents, McDonalds REFUSED to compensate this victim merely for her medical costs. Hence the lawsuit.

Thanks for sharing all your expertise..... [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that the car wasn't moving when she spilled. As far as I can see, that was the only fact I got wrong. At no time did I dispute she was burned or that the coffee was hot enough to burn her. You get no arguement from me that McDonald's was stupidit in not settling for the 20K when they had the chance as well.

OTOH, ALL coffee if brewed properly is hot enough to cause burns. McD's coffee was w/in the range of properly brewed coffee.
 
When I got my first handgun ,a 44 mag I made the mistake of firing the gun by holding between my knees. the bruises were the brightest purple you'd ever want to see. Obviously I didn't do that again,can't imagine the damage with a revolver that operates at 50% higher pressure. None the less the guy is a dope for having his hand anywhere near the front of the cylinder. He's entitled to one large dope slap upside the head and that's it
 
Maybe serious personal injury wasn't clear enough maybe it should of read... If your stupid enough to put your hand here you will lose it.
 
Bob P said:
Thank you for clarifying that the car wasn't moving when she spilled. As far as I can see, that was the only fact I got wrong.
Click to expand...

Look closer.

You said:

The woman paid for her coffee, opened it, put the top back on half-arsed, put the cup between her knees and drove off - which, of course, caused it to spill all over her - and won on the theory that the store failed to warn her the coffee was about 10 degrees hotter then [sic] normal.
Click to expand...

1. She did NOT "put the top back on half-arsed;" it was difficulty in getting the top off which caused the spill.

2. Negligent failure to warn was NOT the sole issue. McDonalds knowing sold coffee which was:

a. HOTTER than industry standards for serving (as opposed to BREWING) coffee;

b. To those it KNEW would be trying to drink and drive;

c. AFTER hundreds of scalding incidents had already occurred.

You ignored most of the facts to make a specious point.

OTOH, ALL coffee if brewed properly is hot enough to cause burns. McD's coffee was w/in the range of properly brewed coffee.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Again.

It was McDonalds' policy to serve its coffee ABOVE the standard serving temp on the bizarre theory that the customers would drive to work, THEN drink the coffee, and it still needed to be hot. As the numerous scalding incidents and common knowledge proved, its customers (like everyone else's) drank the coffee en route.


We now return to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
 
No doubt S&W will settle out of court and, to avoid future liability, will install a sensing mechanism in their revolvers that detects when the operator's appendages are in the danger zone, placing a block between the hammer and firing pin when an unsafe condition is detected. The mechanism will run on a small battery, and a dead battery condition will cause the block to activate. To avoid unnecessary battery drain, it will be possible to de-activate the sensing mechanism using a small key-like device inserted into a hole above the cylinder release, but such deactivation will also engage the block, rendering the revolver inoperative.

Shortly after the new system is implemented, reports will begin to circulate that the mechanism occasionally engages for no apparent reason and without warning. Old-timers who remember the way things used to be, and those who use their guns for self-defense, will refuse to purchase the new revolvers, and prices for revolvers manufactured prior to the mechanism being installed will skyrocket. Newbies, not knowing any better, will continue to buy the new product and S&W will continue to sell revolvers as fast as they can make them.

It's like deja vu all over again.
 
Next thing you know Pistol manufacturers will need to put big red arrows pointing to where not to put you hands, and while there at it why not put an arrow showing which way the bullet exits the gun = DANGER--------> You could be seriously injured or even killed because the bullets come out of the firearm in this direction really really fast. So dont point this at anything you think might think is important eg: hands head feet . Better yet why not just use this firearm unloaded as a club its so much safer this way. Seriously this guy is a moron and should get nothing from S&W. I will even take the gun from him at no charge because i want him to be safe, after all think of the children. Damn wait a minute i hope this idiot didnt procreate thats all we need a bunch of sub 70 IQ retards running around.
 
Most of these safety warnings for consumers merely impede natural selection. The result: The gene pool is becoming more contaminated.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Given the state of the US legal system the only question is not "will he be paid" but "how much". :(
Click to expand...

Probably and unfortunately true. One can understand the reluctance of a gun manufacturer to take ANY sort of case to a jury of likely anti-gunners.
 

Similar threads

Trigger job on a S&W Bodyguard 380?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
850
drgrant
drgrant
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
S&W 617 Reflex Site Placement
Replies
5
Views
164
STEED
STEED
S&W mdl 60 3” barrel
Replies
1
Views
210
Buck Nekid
Buck Nekid
craving a charter arms bulldog .44 sp revolver
Replies
4
Views
259
MAGA99
MAGA99
Back
Top Bottom