I am catching up on my Charlie Rose. I just saw a show about the VW
debacle. Something came out that was interesting. They were comparing
this to the Takata air bag and the GM ignition switch.
It was pointed out that safety defects that kill people can only draw
civil suits and maybe some government fines.
OTOH if they can get a conviction on a "clean air act" violation (like
VW) people can go to jail and have.
There is something wrong here.

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 01:27:19 -0500, wrote:

I am catching up on my Charlie Rose. I just saw a show about the VW
debacle. Something came out that was interesting. They were comparing
this to the Takata air bag and the GM ignition switch.
It was pointed out that safety defects that kill people can only draw
civil suits and maybe some government fines.
OTOH if they can get a conviction on a "clean air act" violation (like
VW) people can go to jail and have.
There is something wrong here.

My wife's gotten at least one offer to join a class action suit. Don't know what the
outcome's going to be.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 12/1/15 1:27 AM, wrote:
I am catching up on my Charlie Rose. I just saw a show about the VW
debacle. Something came out that was interesting. They were comparing
this to the Takata air bag and the GM ignition switch.
It was pointed out that safety defects that kill people can only draw
civil suits and maybe some government fines.
OTOH if they can get a conviction on a "clean air act" violation (like
VW) people can go to jail and have.
There is something wrong here.


Corporatus uber alles, to mix languages.


You know about the federal law that exempts gun manufacturers from
lawsuits filed against them to pay for damages caused by defects in
their own product, but I don't know if that law also protects them from
criminal prosecutions.

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:07:47 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 12/1/15 1:27 AM, wrote:
I am catching up on my Charlie Rose. I just saw a show about the VW
debacle. Something came out that was interesting. They were comparing
this to the Takata air bag and the GM ignition switch.
It was pointed out that safety defects that kill people can only draw
civil suits and maybe some government fines.
OTOH if they can get a conviction on a "clean air act" violation (like
VW) people can go to jail and have.
There is something wrong here.


Corporatus uber alles, to mix languages.


You know about the federal law that exempts gun manufacturers from
lawsuits filed against them to pay for damages caused by defects in
their own product, but I don't know if that law also protects them from
criminal prosecutions.

The "defect" the people who are against guns cite is the fact that
bullets come out the end of the barrel. They want to sue manufacturers
for the crimes people commit. It is like suing GM because cars running
over pedestrians might actually hurt them.

On 12/1/2015 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:07:47 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 12/1/15 1:27 AM, wrote:
I am catching up on my Charlie Rose. I just saw a show about the VW
debacle. Something came out that was interesting. They were comparing
this to the Takata air bag and the GM ignition switch.
It was pointed out that safety defects that kill people can only draw
civil suits and maybe some government fines.
OTOH if they can get a conviction on a "clean air act" violation (like
VW) people can go to jail and have.
There is something wrong here.


Corporatus uber alles, to mix languages.


You know about the federal law that exempts gun manufacturers from
lawsuits filed against them to pay for damages caused by defects in
their own product, but I don't know if that law also protects them from
criminal prosecutions.

The "defect" the people who are against guns cite is the fact that
bullets come out the end of the barrel. They want to sue manufacturers
for the crimes people commit. It is like suing GM because cars running
over pedestrians might actually hurt them.



I don't think Harry is correct in stating that gun manufacturers are
immune from lawsuits for damages caused by defects.

They are immune from lawsuits for death or injury when the gun is used
and performs as designed and intended. In other words, they can't be
held liable if someone shoots someone with one of their products.

However, if the gun "blows up" or otherwise malfunctions and causes
injury or death due to a design fault or manufacturing flaw, they
certainly *can* be sued.

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:42:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/1/2015 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:07:47 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 12/1/15 1:27 AM, wrote:
I am catching up on my Charlie Rose. I just saw a show about the VW
debacle. Something came out that was interesting. They were comparing
this to the Takata air bag and the GM ignition switch.
It was pointed out that safety defects that kill people can only draw
civil suits and maybe some government fines.
OTOH if they can get a conviction on a "clean air act" violation (like
VW) people can go to jail and have.
There is something wrong here.


Corporatus uber alles, to mix languages.


You know about the federal law that exempts gun manufacturers from
lawsuits filed against them to pay for damages caused by defects in
their own product, but I don't know if that law also protects them from
criminal prosecutions.

The "defect" the people who are against guns cite is the fact that
bullets come out the end of the barrel. They want to sue manufacturers
for the crimes people commit. It is like suing GM because cars running
over pedestrians might actually hurt them.



I don't think Harry is correct in stating that gun manufacturers are
immune from lawsuits for damages caused by defects.

They are immune from lawsuits for death or injury when the gun is used
and performs as designed and intended. In other words, they can't be
held liable if someone shoots someone with one of their products.

However, if the gun "blows up" or otherwise malfunctions and causes
injury or death due to a design fault or manufacturing flaw, they
certainly *can* be sued.


Yup, Remington got sued and agreed to a class action settlement for
the M700 trigger problem although you needed to be doing something
unsafe to be hurt.

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:42:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/1/2015 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:07:47 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 12/1/15 1:27 AM, wrote:
I am catching up on my Charlie Rose. I just saw a show about the VW
debacle. Something came out that was interesting. They were comparing
this to the Takata air bag and the GM ignition switch.
It was pointed out that safety defects that kill people can only draw
civil suits and maybe some government fines.
OTOH if they can get a conviction on a "clean air act" violation (like
VW) people can go to jail and have.
There is something wrong here.


Corporatus uber alles, to mix languages.


You know about the federal law that exempts gun manufacturers from
lawsuits filed against them to pay for damages caused by defects in
their own product, but I don't know if that law also protects them from
criminal prosecutions.

The "defect" the people who are against guns cite is the fact that
bullets come out the end of the barrel. They want to sue manufacturers
for the crimes people commit. It is like suing GM because cars running
over pedestrians might actually hurt them.



I don't think Harry is correct in stating that gun manufacturers are
immune from lawsuits for damages caused by defects.

They are immune from lawsuits for death or injury when the gun is used
and performs as designed and intended. In other words, they can't be
held liable if someone shoots someone with one of their products.

However, if the gun "blows up" or otherwise malfunctions and causes
injury or death due to a design fault or manufacturing flaw, they
certainly *can* be sued.


Sometimes, in a very few cases, omniscience is faulty.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!