Details

• Sponsor - Durbin
• Proposed - July 28, 2005
• Congressional Record Link - SA1640
• Amends - S.397
• Amendments - None.
• Vote - Amendment did not reach Senate floor.
• Results - No change in law.

Synopsis

The first part of this amendment allowed lawsuits when:

    (iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;

    (v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

    (vi) any case in which a manufacturer or seller caused injury through willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights and safety of the individual harmed.

The second part of the suit is the standard gross negligence clause we have seen in so many of these amendments.

Analysis

The amendment allows suits when injury occurs worst part of the first section is where paragraph (vi). This section guts the bill as court cases would be brought to show  potential "gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights and safety of the individual harmed."

The Negligent Entrustment  clause is wording common to more than half a dozen of these amendments. So, one more time, every firearm runs the risk of injuring a person and this would be an open ended invitation to allow lawsuits.

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!