On suing gun manufacturers

[HopeAgain]

1. Let's talk products liability

We have a bump fire stock which has caused a weapon to present an unreasonably dangerous condition that results in foreseeable injuries to others. The real issue is whether the intervening intentional tortious act relieves the gun modification maker from being the "legal cause" of the injury.

Legal cause has always taken into account, especially in products liability cases, public policy considerations, i.e. Making products safer. The strongest argument is that there is NO utility in installing these modifications other than making these guns more deadly. They don't make them useful for accurate target shooting (clearly). They can't be used for safe or sporting hunting. face it, we make automatic weapons to kill more people more quickly. The only other use is the primal gratification some mouth breathers get imagining they are killing a lot of people when they shoot them. From a policy standpoint what should juries see as far as being an unsafe product? products liability is not analyzed using common law torts.

I respectfully disagree These cases might have a shot, depending on the redneck level of the judges and juries.