dealer liability
If a dealer has new guns in his inventory where the manufacture has gone out of business(take lorcin for example) does he incure any legal liability by selling the firearm? Thanks
0
-
If something goes sideways regarding the gun, the bottom feeding lawyers will go after anybody with money. If the manufacturer is out of business and can't be sued, or doesn't have any money? Dam sure it's going to be the guy who sold the gun, if he has money/liability insurance.
EDIT #1, If your selling a POS like a Lorcin that has been recalled, and the manufacturer is out of business? Even as a used gun you got as a trade in, your just asking for trouble. I believe there is a web site that lists firearms that have been recalled for safety reasons. Damm sure if I was a dealer, before I took in any gun that was at all questionable, I would check it.0 -
Generally, no. If there is a known defect in a firearms, as in the case of the Thompson Center Venture rifles, and a dealer goes ahead and sells one after being notified of the recall which is currently in effect. In that situation he most likely could be held liable for damages caused by that rifle. The key is whether or not he was aware of the defect. In the case of the Venture rifles; every FFL dealer has been notified by mail not to sell any of those rifles which are currently in his inventory and to provide the names and addresses of anyone who he sold those rifle to. Selling a firearm from a defunct gun manufacturer does not involve any liability or obligate the dealer to provide warranty work or support for the firearm. 0 -
you can sue anybody for anything and once its in front of the judge, it can go either way.
now, if you want to talk about being successfully sued, thats a separate conversation. it would take a very good lawyer and a very dumb judge to assign liability to a dealer(except in a case such as mark mentioned).
the problem is that the damage is likely already done. lawsuits are expensive. you need a lawyer and lawyers cost big money. even if you win, you may have just spent your life savings, a second mortgage, sold the business etc to pay the bill.0 -
Just a practical point of view, but if the manufacturer is out of business and the buyer can afford only a Lorcin - who has, by way of comparison, the deep pockets? I'd say whoever that person is would be the one most likely to be sued.
Again, just a practical point of view - and assuming Ross Perot isn't the Lorcin buyer of course ... [;)]0 -
While its true that "anyone can be sued by anyone", and its also true that you never really know what's going to happen when a case goes to trial, in practice, BS cases usually don't make it past jurors and juries. Despite the popular conception of stupid juries, most of the time they do reach the "correct" decision.
Ultimately if someone does something irresponsible with a gun, they're going to have a heck of a time trying to pin that on a dealer in a court of law.
To the extent that a dealer has any liability in selling a gun, it will proportionate to the actual risk posed by the gun in question.
With the issue of a recalled gun, yes, if a dealer goes ahead and sells a gun he knows to have been recalled, he could be held liable. I'd disagree with Mark here a hair, in that if a dealer were to sell a gun he *should* have known was recalled, and the defect in question causes an injury, he'd still potentially be liable for that injury, even if he claimed not to know about the recall in question. But that's the sort of thing lawyers will argue about.
Realistically, with any quality-built gun, there really should be no more liability with a new gun from a defunct manufacturer than any other. Well-built guns don't cause injury unless the shooter does so intentionally or through negligence.
Used guns are pretty much always sold on an "as is" basis anyway.
With a Lorcin that only costs $75 (or less), the expectation is that you're buying a piece of crap. So if/when something goes wrong with the gun, its going to be pretty hard to blame the dealer for that.
This is somewhat analogous to buying a crappy lemon off a used car lot for $1000. Neither the seller nor the buyer should have any illusions about what that car is, and how likely it might be to have mechanical or other problems. When the brakes fail, the buyer is going to have a hard time convincing a jury that the car dealer is responsible.
Realistically, the most likely problem with something like a Lorcin is that the gun just won't cycle. But assuming its a jam-o-matic, that doesn't create liability. When the gun doesn't go off at the range, so what? There's no injury in that situation, hence no liability. If the gun doesn't go off in a self-defense situation, its going to be pretty tough to convince a jury that the DEALER was responsible for any injury suffered by the gun buyer, when said buyer bought the equivalent of a "lemon" gun.
Next most likely problem is that parts will break. Again, what's the dealer liability there? If the frame were to crack completely ruining the gun, its not worth anyone's trouble to file a suit over $50-70 worth of gun parts.
Even if a gun were to blow up like a grenade, so long as the shooter were wearing eye protection it probably wouldn't cause major injury, and even if it did it would be hard to pin that on the dealer.
I think the biggest real world risk with something like a Lorcin is that the gun may not be drop-safe. But again, should the owner drop it and accidentally hurt or kill someone, its going to be tough to pin that on the dealer for the same sorts of reasons.0 -
An out of buisness manufacturer = instant collectable. They aren't makeing any more. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments