From: carlp@frigg.isc-br.com (Carl Paukstis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Tort reform (was: Trial Lawyers and Clintons...)
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:28:49 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.184417.25943@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>Note that Ruger faced strict liability.  Ruger could have chosen
>>>(1) to leave the guns as they were and compensate the victims, or
>>>(2) pay the costs of fixing the guns so that the defect was removed

>>>Obviously, Ruger chose (2) as a cheaper option than (1).  Which would
>>>imply that society is better off because there was legal liability --
>>>without that liability, Ruger would not have fixed the guns, and society
>>>would have faced the costs of (1), rather than the costs of (2).

>>No, without that liability, the owners of the guns would have had them
>>fixed, and society would have faced the costs of (2).  Either that, or
>>the owners would have decided that (1) is cheaper than (2), and they
>>wouldn't have had the guns fixed.  In either case, society would bear
>>the lower cost.  (In fact, if for some people (1) is cheaper and for
>>others (2) is cheaper, this is the only solution that gets the lowest
>>cost, by fixing some of the guns).

>You're assuming perfect information.  Ruger has a true sense of the
>costs involved.  Consumers won't--the cost of the information to
>an individual consumer will be too great.  Furthermore, there are economies
>of scale: a million gun owners fixing one gun each is going to be much
>more expensive than one gun manufacturer producing a million guns the
>right way the first time.

>Furthermore, without that liability, Ruger is even more likely to
>include other defects in the guns.

[apologies for the excessively long inclusion; I couldn't trim it and
retain context]

Reality check here, guys.  Unless you've strayed quite far from the
original thread, the alleged "defect" was in fact a known,
normal operating parameter of the guns in question.  Ruger _invented_
a _new technology_ which could make operation safer in some
circumstances.  This new technology took the form of a modification of
some of the internals of the firing mechanism (I'm pretty sure we're
talking about the "transfer bar" system Ruger invented, eh?  This
requires that a metal bar be raised, which transfers the impact from
the hammer to the firing pin.  The hammer cannot directly contact the
firing pin, and the transfer bar is raised only when the trigger is
held at its rearmost [pulled] position).  Some yutz was injured by an
older gun, and (successfully?) sued Ruger claiming that they should
have known the old ones were unsafe, since they improved them.

Owners of the pre-modification guns were aware, or certainly SHOULD
HAVE BEEN AWARE of the danger of carrying with six loaded chambers
(the sear notch could break or slip, letting the hammer strike the
firing pin, firing the round in the current chamber).  Seth is
correct: for some owners, this is acceptable; they just carry the way
Sam Colt did: five chambers loaded and an empty one under the hammer.
It's not dangerous; ownership of the weapon without knowledge of this
requirement can be dangerous in a few circumstances.  I contend that
failure to know the operating characteristics of a potentially-
hazardous device (like a gun, or a car) without thorough knowledge of
its safe operating limits, is clearly foolish and negligent.

Ruger's responsible attempt to improve the technology should not be made
to force them into upgrading pre-improvement guns at their own expense!
They manufactured the guns in good faith with the current state of the
art technology, and no doubt included user's manuals which defined the
safe operating limits (I haven't seen one of the old ones, but Ruger's
modern manuals are generally excellent).  Some consumers would even
PREFER the pre-improvement models (collectors or nostalgia buffs, for
example).

"Society" does not exist as an entity which can enjoy benefits or
suffer costs (IMHO, of course).  Ted, your final statement is just
backwards:  with the asessment of liability for this "defect", Ruger
is unlikely to make future improvements, because that might get them
sued over (un-)safety of the existing product base, and they can't
reasonably afford to upgrade every gun they ever sold every time they
make an improvement.  Now I belive THAT's where this thread started.

BTW: Smith & Wesson uses a similar system, and Colt uses a firing pin
locking system in many revolvers and the newer Government Model autos.
But other manufacturers still make the old-style system, and if you
don't know for sure, it's safer to carry with one empty chamber.  Colt
faces (faced) a similar liability problem with the Gov't Model .45s
when they introduced the firing-pin-lock with Series 80 (?); I believe
they had/have a "free upgrade" program.  More drag and less control
for a competition gun - I never had it done.  But I'm not gonna sue
Colt if I drop mine just right and the inertia firing pin pops the
round in the chamber!
--
Carl Paukstis, RRR&RSG           | "Good men must not obey the laws too well"
 ISC-Bunker Ramo / Spokane, WA   |    -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
 Phone: +1 509 927-5439          |  
 Mail: carlp@frigg.isc-br.com    |  My employer accepts no responsibility...