In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Family sues gun maker (Remington)

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited February 2002 in General Discussion
Family sues gun maker 02/18/02By KATHLEEN O'TOOLE Chronicle Staff Writer Respond to this storyEmail this story to a friendMore than a year after 9-year-old Gus Barber of Manhattan was accidentally shot and killed by his mother with her Remington 700 bolt-action rifle, the Barber family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington Arms Company Inc. The Barbers allege the gun was designed and sold in "a defective condition and (was) unreasonably dangerous," according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Butte. The Barber lawsuit comes on the heels of another lawsuit against Remington filed by a Great Falls couple, which made substantially the same claims. Curtis and Lori Hester filed suit after Curtis Hester accidentally shot himself in the foot while unloading his Remington 700. The Hesters' lawsuit was recently settled, said Richard C. Miller, a Missouri attorney who represents the Hester and Barber families. "Remington agreed to make a cash payment, which I can't disclose the amount, in exchange for a dismissal of the charges," Miller said Thursday. "The case was satisfactorily resolved." Miller said notice of the settlement was to be filed with the federal court Thursday. Ann Cohen, a New York attorney representing Remington, confirmed the Hester lawsuit had been settled, but declined to discuss details. The Barber lawsuit, like the Hester suit, claims Remington failed to properly warn consumers, produced a gun of negligent design and manufacture and failed to recall or retrofit the gun. It also accuses Remington of destroying "incriminating evidence," like customer complaints, gun examination reports and internal memoranda, "with the full knowledge of past, pending and future claims regarding he Remington Model 700," according to the suit. Barbara Barber, Gus's mother, was unloading her rifle following a day's hunt in the Gravely Range on Oct. 23, 2000, the Barbers' suit recalls. "Due to the presence of a bolt-lock mechanism, this required her to release the safety in order to open the bolt to eject the chambered round," according to the suit. "Immediately upon releasing the safety, the rifle suddenly and unexpectedly discharged. "The trigger was not pulled or contacted in any manner, but instead the rifle fired on safety release, a phenomenon Defendants refer to as 'FSR.' ... Richard Augustus Barber died as a result of the gunshot wound on the way or at the emergency room at Madison Valley hospital," according to the lawsuit. The Barbers seek general damages "in excess of $75,000" against Remington, I.E. DuPont de Nemours and Company, which owned Remington prior to 1983, and Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., which is what Remington is now known as. The Barbers also ask for punitive damages, attorneys fees and costs, interest and any additional relief the court deems proper. Of the lawsuit Rich Barber, Gus's father, said, "I think it is the least significant thing I've done in the whole time (since Gus's death). All the hundreds of other lawsuits (against Remington) haven't done anything." Barber said his "agenda" is totally different from other litigants, that for the past year he's concentrated on informing and educating the public about the gun and its perceived defects. "Had I known that that rifle had a propensity to do what it did, I would never have owned one," he said. With his education and information campaign, "I'm trying to offer other people a chance we never had." Still, he agreed to go ahead with a lawsuit against Remington. "I think, the bottom line is, in the end, litigation will force the eventual recall of a defective product," he said http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/311/public/news256007.html
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • groundhog devastationgroundhog devastation Member Posts: 4,495
    edited November -1
    THEY ALSO TRAVELED TO AND FROM THE PLACE OF HUNTING THAT DAY EITHER BY CAR,TRUCK OR ON FOOT. IF THE YOUNG PERSON HAD MET AN UTIMELY DEMISE FOR ANY OTHER REASON OTHER THAN A FIREARM, WOULD THEY BE SEEKING A SETTTLEMENT FROM THE MANUFACTURERS OF THOSE ITEMS OR THEMSELVES? I THINK NOT!! IT'S JUST GUNS!!! ANOTHER MISGUIDED LAWSUIT LAUNCHED IN THE MIDST OF HUMAN DILEMMA!!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mbrookmbrook Member Posts: 128 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I quote from page 2 of my Remington 700 instruction book. WATCH YOUR MUZZLE. Always keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction. (A direction which will not allow a discharged bullet/slug or shot to strike a person or an object which may cause injury, death or damage)... Do not allow the muzzle to point at any part of your body or at anybody else. Seems pretty simple to me
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Hans GrueberHans Grueber Member Posts: 244 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Its amazing how the fundamentals of firearm safety are disregarded. I've witnessed people inadvertantly point their guns at people when unloading. And in most cases I'm the only one who notices these things. Sometimes its hard to speak up in these situations though. Thats why most of the time I shoot and hunt alone. Its too bad that a child has to die because her * mother was in a hurry or some other stupid reason. As for the guy who shot himself in the foot, I guess some have to learn the hard way.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • k.stanonikk.stanonik Member Posts: 2,109 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Recently i heard about a young lady who died in a single car accident, the family filed suit because of safety hazards and the case was dismissed because she didnt read her owners manule, could this be the case with the people involved in these cases.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • niklasalniklasal Member Posts: 776 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The manufacturer failed to warn the consumer about safety?Oh, I forgot... Nowhere does it say "always keep firearms pointed in safe direction."Remington is not responsible for a uneducated person's ignorance.
    NIKLASAL@hotmail.com
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RancheroPaulRancheroPaul Member Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't understand why it is so hard to understand that a gun is a mechanical machine. The gun safety rules taught in any Gun Safety course anywhere I know of teach these basic concepts! "Don't point any gun at anything you don't want to Destroy!" I don't know what the safety instruction manual for that gun says but I'm sure it will bear out the same message. What part of "Destroy" don't folks understand? So sad a youngster didn't get a chance to understand this rule! Somebody sure should now!
    If You Can't Buy a Pair, Get a Spare!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • berto64berto64 Member Posts: 57 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    or an ignorant person's lack of education.That's the reason for sueing, so mommy won't feel so bad for killing her daughter.berto
    What! Trade my M-14 for that plastic piece of ___t!Endeavor to Persevere[This message has been edited by berto64 (edited 02-21-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AntiqueDrAntiqueDr Member Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    How about charging mom with Negligent Homicide?
    We buy, sell and trade quality guns and scopes!Ask us about Shepherd Scopes!Visit our website at www.ApaxEnterprises.com
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • edharoldedharold Member Posts: 465 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think it would be pretty pathetic to charge a mother with the accidental death of her own child.
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"Benj. Franklin, 1759
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ADfreeADfree Member Posts: 188 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I say make her teach safety courses.. wait, nevermind, that would be a disaster waiting to happen.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jastrjastr Member Posts: 463 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Where i live...........the mother should have unloaded the firearm before she ever got in the car too come home.. unless she had a permit... and the rest of you are correct w/ your comments on unloading her weapon. For the death of this womens child .. remington is not at fault!
    lets all be responsible! shoot a criminal!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    ATLA at it's "best!" Only those with deep pockets are at fault. Tort case years ago, fellow in KA killed when he lost control of his vehicle and was thrown from the car in a collision w/ one or more other vehicles. He was drunk and traveling at a high rate of speed. His death was whose fault? The manufacturer, because the design of the door handle allowed it to be actuated by the impact. I don't agree entirely w/ Shakespere; we do need lawyers and many are good people. But we could hang 90% of them - and 90% of the judges - and have a far better society.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RUGERNUT3RUGERNUT3 Member Posts: 247 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Horrible accident. I handle guns daily. If ANY of these were to fire "accidentally"...know one would be shot...the bullet goes ONLY where it is pointed....
    "ANY" EXCUSE IS A GOOD REASON TO BUY "JUST 1 MORE".& VICIE-VERSIE!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Notwithstanding the womans bad safety practices, it does seem like the gun went off when it should not have. A gun should not go off when you open the bolt. I do not own a 700, so I am not sure about this phenomenon they are speaking of. I have bolt rifles that when you open the bolt, the safety shuts off, and the gun will fire the next time the trigger is pulled. , but I have never had a gun fire because I opened the bolt.Is there something to this defect argument?If a gun fires when the bolt is opened, it seems to me there is something wrong with the gun.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • daddodaddo Member Posts: 3,408
    edited November -1
    I'll admit the mother should not have been pointing the gun at ANYONE-ANYTIME. However; aren't we missing a point here? No rifle or handgun should fire when unloading it. If it does, then there is a problem with the gun. There are two reasons the girl was shot-1. The gun was pointed at her.2. The gun went off when it shouldn't have. The mother should be charged accordingly and an investigation into the FSR should be done,and Remington held accountable if it failed to correct,notify,recall and repair the problem.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I understand that the woman was negligent in her handling of the gun. Whenever I handle a gun, I assume that it can go off by itself, and I assume that it is loaded(even though it will not go off, and I am 100% certain it is unloaded). Call me paranoid. But I have a problem, when a gun will go off,when it is not supposed to. And I have a problem with Remington, if they know that this has been a problem with their rifles, and have chosen not to fix this problem.The woman was wrong, pointing the gun where it should not be pointed.But that does not excuse the fact that Remington has a product out there that malfunctions, and have not done anything to fix this problem. If there defense is, "Yeah sometimes the gun goes off when you release the safety, but the user of the gun should know safe handling rules with respect to guns", then Remington is going to get nailed-rightly so.And I will tell you this- I have a bolt action rifle purchase in my future, and after reading this, I will not be buying a Remington. The chances of me shooting someone by accident because the safety malfunctioned is virtually nil, but I do not want a gun going off in my hands when it is not supposed to-no matter where the gun is pointed. Remington should be ashamed of themselves, allowing a defective rifle to be on the market.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    had she unloaded the weapon at the range, this wouldn't be a topic. Why would you unload a gun in the house? Even if any of us did this, and we had it pointed in a safe direction, think about the hearing loss from that rifle going off in the house. She needs to have never had a firearm around other people.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • .280 freak.280 freak Member Posts: 1,942 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A few little details getting mixed up on this thread -The person shot and killed in the Barber case was not a girl; it was Gus, a 9 year old boy.He and his mother were not in a house or a car. He was on one side of some sort of trailer (I think that I recall that it was a horse trailer, but I could be wrong on this), and the mother was on the other side; the bullet passed through the trailer before striking Gus. The problem with the older Remington 700's (I believe the newer ones, made since the mid 80's or thereabouts, have a different safety mechanism than the older ones) was apparently exacerbated by the fact that the only way to work the bolt (as in unloading the gun) is to have the safety off.When this case first came to light last year, there was a huge controversy raging over at Huntamerica.com with members taking sides either for or against Remington.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PelicanPelican Member Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I had this happen. Don't remember the exact year but was in the mid '70s. Sat down in the passenger side of the pickup and with the muzzle to the floor flipped the safety off to unload. BOOM! Sk-art the hell outa me. Nice hole in floorboard but no other damage, 'cept the bruise the butt made on my gut as it jumped back from the recoil.I just figured it was a worn action as it was a used gun I had taken in trade. Didn't know the things had a tendency toward this.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    Remington is clearly at fault in that the design of the early 700 safety was BAD. Having a rifle discharge when the safety is released is not that unusual, normally caused by some backyard gunsmith trying to fix things. That isn't the case with remington's 700.That said, there is shared liability in this case. The mother was also at fault in not maintaining her muzzle in a safe direction.We, the Jury, find for the plaintif in the ammount of $1,000,000; liability split between Mother (95%) and Remington (5%).Remington owes $50,000 and the mother owes $950,000. (She owes it to the rest of the family, the other plaintifs in this case. Should they get divorced (I would get rid of such a dumb female), she would owe the father the entire $950,000. Case closed.
    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think some of you are missing the point, and yes there is a double standard for the gun industry, but you sometimes see it elsewhere also. The point is, the family sued Remington for having a gun with a faulty system, at least thats how I understand it. At least one other poster has said that it has been a known condition, and also in the original post it was stated that Remington intentionally covered up circumstances by destroying documents or something to that effect. It seems clear to me that Remington is at fault, not of the death of the person, but for building the faulty system, knowing about it, and not doing a recall of the gun. This is something the auto industry is famous for, correcting a wrong when knowing of it, usually, and all responsible companys should be obliged to do so, just like toy companys do recalls all the time when they are alerted of a trend. I think Remington got out of this one cheap so far, and should consider themselves lucky. I hold the woman responsible for the shooting, but I hold Remington responsible for not doing something about the malfunction, much as you would GM, Chrysler, or Ford, if you had an accident due to a design flaw they knew about but didnt correct. Bottom line, if either one of the two parites, the woman or Remington, had taken the appropriate actions to begin with, this accident and tradgedy would not have occured. This is the opinion of me, someone who feels stongly against sueing people, companys etc., for stupid stuff, but this is legitimate in my opinion.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 51,593 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What ever happened to "never point a firearm at something you do not want to kill? The gun may have been faulty, but it should have shot only the floor or a wall not a child.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whiteclouderwhiteclouder Member Posts: 10,574 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If---IF it can be proved that the firearm did if fact discharge when the safety was released and Remington knew this was a problem and did nothing about it, like a recall or announcements, they deserve to be sued. If they knew about it and hide the facts, they need to be put out of business. The mother has to live with her stupidity.Clouder..
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mudgemudge Member Posts: 4,225 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm probablygoing to sound a bit harsh here, BUT......Is this woman saying, "A faulty piece of equipment caused the death of my child, but if you give me a lot of money, it'll be OK?"Sounds like that to me. Then they say, "Oh, it's not about the money, it's to send a message." If that's the case, don't accept they money or give it to a charity.Mudge the cynic
    I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Zorny5Zorny5 Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have an older Remington model 722 bolt action .222 and the only way to unload it and pull the bolt up is if the safety is off. It's the only thing that I am leery about with the gun. However, I understand that my gun does this and I am extra careful when unloading and loading it to prevent tragedies like the one mentioned above from happening. Seems to me that the mother is feeling a bit guilty and is looking to blame someone else, and make a profit from it. People like her (men, women, and children) have no right handling a firearm when they can't keep it pointed where it needs to go. Why the hell was it pointed at the side of a trailor for?? I was always taught to keep the muzzle poited at the ground, away from bystanders, etc...Too bad common sense can't be taught and too bad there is some piss poor judge that will probably side with the irresponsible ignorant woman.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Zorny5Zorny5 Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Sorry about the double post. I accidentally typed (me, women, and children) instead of (men, women and children). Don't want all of you to think I am an irresponsible lunatic with a bunch of guns. I try to be as responsible as possible when around firearms.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sandman2234sandman2234 Member Posts: 894 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I had my hands on a gun that could not be unloaded without causing a discharge. It was not a Remington. Put a hole in my Step-mother's brand new floor. Got reamed and gave the gun to my Dad, who promptly put another one in the tile next to the one I had shot. Gun was taken outside for the rest of the unloading. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
    Have Gun, will travel
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PelicanPelican Member Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hey Sandman, y'all coulda just passed it around till it were empty
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.