Remember that guy who sued Smith & Wesson after he injured his finger while firing a .460 caliber revolver? It was a powerful handgun with a strong recoil, so he tried to hold on to it with both hands. However, he had his left fingers too close to the gap between the barrel and the cylinder. The gas pressure sliced his left index finger, and two surgeries later, he ended up with a short index finger.
What made this one big news was that he sued Smith & Wesson. However, in August the court tossed out the case by granting S&W's motion for summary judgment. Anyone interested in it can click here to read the opinion.
But here are some interesting aspects of the case and the court's opinion. It seems that the defendant had burned his hand once before doing the same thing with a smaller caliber revolver. So he should have had a sense of the danger. However, he contended that he didn't realize how much more pressure the bigger caliber gun would produce.
The manual that came with the handgun warned about keeping the fingers away from the area between the barrel and the cylinder and explained why. But the shooter hadn't read the manual. There's your problem.
S&W won the motion, and the case was tossed.
The federal court judge in Dallas seemed to believe that state court law holds that handgun dangers are common and obviously known, and the opinion contained this,
"Cases applying Texas law have been unanimous in holding that there is no duty to warn of the obvious dangers of owning or selling a handgun. ... Defendant has no duty to warn of the dangers associated with the revolver, thus, summary judgment is appropriate."
Hmm, interesting observation. Maybe the dangers were known to this particular plaintiff, anyway. But, the plaintiff hadn't provided any evidence that the warning in the manual was inadequate, and surely that had to have been the deciding factor.
I question how commonly known the danger was in 2006 when the accident occurred. But it made the news when the fellow filed suit. And there was another instance which got thorough internet play in which a shooter's thumb was injured. (Some gruesome photos are still online for anyone interested in seeing them.) And helping to bring attention to this problem, Mythbusters even did a segment on it confirming that the expelled gasses could sever a hotdog. Actually, the fact that Mythbusters did a feature on it suggests that it might not have been such common knowledge after all.
In any event, with all that has transpired, at least we might be able to say now that the dangers are commonly known.
The case was Foltz vs. Smith & Wesson Corp. No. 3:08-cv-00858-K, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas.
Comments