• The Shot You’ll Never Forget Giveaway - Enter To Win A Barrel From Rifle Barrel Blanks!

    Tell us about the best or most memorable shot you’ve ever taken. Contest ends June 13th and remember: subscribe for a better chance of winning!

    Join contest Subscribe

CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

MueveloNYC

MueveloNYC

Private
Minuteman
May 1, 2008
81
0
NYC, NY
#1
I was watching CNBC in the office and saw them briefly mention this, so I googled and saw this:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39383236/CNBC_S_R..._20th_at_9PM_ET

Essentially looks like they did an investigation on the 700's and something about phantom discharge of the rifle including one gunowner and a death of his son.

Anyone seen this yet?

Personally, my safety is always finger off the trigger and the bolt open. And I never leave my rifle loaded either. Just curious under what circumstances they've "found" phantom discharges...
 
#3
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BOLTRIPPER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there are way too many barristers in this world </div></div>It's not a lawyer problem, it's a trigger problem.

Besides, it sounds like the operator of the rifle had the muzzle pointed at something other than what he wanted to destroy.
 
#5
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MueveloNYC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">my point exactly! Next thing they'll do is make mandatory 12 lb triggers... *rolleyes* </div></div>Except that it's not a trigger weight issue. To be the subject of product liability suit there would have to be a design problem that causes injury when the trigger is being used as it was intended to be used.
 
#6
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

Did some more googling on this... they're blaming the safety. Here's the memo that's been submitted as evidence in the Texas case:
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/docs/Remington-79-80-Memo.pdf

Found it via this filing:
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/Texas-Defective-Remington700.php

Apparently the X-pro trigger fixes it. But whatever. As I said before, I rarely rely on the mechanical safety. I always treat it as loaded, and it's not safe unless the bolt is open and pointed in a safe direction, finger off the trigger. It's the #1 rule with firearms, taught at every hunter's education class, CCW class (where required), etc.
 
#7
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MueveloNYC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">my point exactly! Next thing they'll do is make mandatory 12 lb triggers... *rolleyes* </div></div>Except that there is no bureau of mandatory trigger-weight standards and it's not a trigger weight issue. To be the subject of product liability suit there would have to be a design problem that causes injury when the trigger is being used as it was intended to be used. </div></div>

Maybe change the name from safety, to "accidental discharge deterrent." Glock has a safety, yet Plaxico managed to shoot himself when it slid down his pants... LOL
 
#8
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MueveloNYC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did some more googling on this... they're blaming the safety. </div></div>Except that it's not the safety that is to blame.

And the law firm blames the design of the connector, not the safety:

"1. Remington’s trigger mechanism uses an internal component called a “connector” – a design component not used by any other rifle manufacturer. The connector floats on top of the trigger body inside of the gun, but is not physically bound to the trigger in any way other than tension from a spring. When the trigger is pulled, the connecter is pushed forward by the trigger, allowing the sear to fall and fire the rifle.

2. The proper position of the connector under the sear is an overlap of only 25/1000ths of an inch, but because the connector is not bound to the trigger, the connector separates from the trigger body when the rifle is fired and creates a gap between the two parts.

3. Any dirt, debris or manufacturing scrap can then become lodged in the space created between the connector and the trigger, preventing the connector from returning to its original position.

4. Remington’s defective fire control could have been redesigned to eliminate the harm or danger very inexpensively. There is no valid engineering reason why the successfully utilized connectorless designs could not have been used by Remington in its Model 700 and 710."

Probably because there have been reported AD's when the safety was not in use.
 
#9
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

Story gets deeper:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/17/eveningnews/main301947.shtml

Here's the main issue. Mother was handling the firearm, and was turning the safety off while her son was in front of the rifle. (seriously WHY?). Always point the muzzle in a safe direction and don't mess with the firearm unless you're absolutely ok to destroy what the muzzle is pointed at...

Yes, the story is tragic, but a death could've been avoided if they followed the cardinal rules of firearms handling.
 
#10
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

@Graham,

Hmm interesting... Given that the 700 has seen a lot of combat in Iraq, I wonder if any of our boys here have experienced this with sand getting in there and affecting the connector?
 
#11
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MueveloNYC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the main issue....</div></div>Does that jurisdiction recognize comparative negligence? She reprortedly pointed a loaded rifle at her son, then took the safety off. Question: Is she more than 50% responsible for his death?
 
#12
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

Tort reform. They have nothing to lose by spinning the wheel. If the ambulance chasing extornionist and their accomplice/s were responsible for the defense fees if they lose the case, we wouldn't have to pay so much for our firearms (or healthcare, or automobiles, or etc etc)!
 
#13
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Immorteq</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Torte reform. They have nothing to lose by spinning the wheel. If the ambulance chasing extornionist and their accomplice/s were responsible for the defense fees if they lose the case, we wouldn't have to pay so much for our firearms (or healthcare, or automobiles, or etc etc)! </div></div>Seriously?! First of all, I happen to favor Torte. I am also partial to croque en bouche. Secondly, you lack a grasp of basic economics. It looks to me like you are simply repeating what you heard from others. If you think about it for just one second you'll see that making the loser responsible for the attorney fees of the winner would favor access to the courts for only the rich and powerful - the very same people you are criticizing.
 
#14
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

you would have to have torte law before there is a torte reform. I don't thing there is any kind of comparative negligence on the books for shooting your own kid yet.


this is on par with suing the auto manufacturer for not making rear-view cameras a standard feature asserting "but for". But for the car not having a rear camera, I would not have squished my kid in the pavement. When in reality, you're the negligent dumb fuck who squashed your precision little pumpkin.
 
#15
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seriously?! First of all, I happen to favor Torte. I am also partial to croque en bouche. Secondly, you lack a grasp of basic economics. It looks to me like you are simply repeating what you heard from others. If you think about it for just one second you'll see that making the loser responsible for the attorney fees of the winner would favor access to the courts for only the rich and powerful - the very same people you are criticizing. </div></div>

Who did I criticize that is rich and powerful? You don't think the bullshit lawsuits that companies pay out on aren't passed down to the consumer through cost increases? Seriously? Every big corporation applies cost benefit analysis to these exact curcumstances and the consumer gets screwed either way. You think my neighbor is going to sue me for stupid things if they may be liable for my costs if they can't prove their case? I benefit as much as big business. Do you seriously think big business is unhappy with the system as it is now? Sheesh!
 
#19
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Immorteq</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The legal system is already a tool of the rich and powerful. How much worse can it get? </div></div>Apparently it can get worse; if they can convince more people to agree with you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Immorteq</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't think the bullshit lawsuits that companies pay out on aren't passed down to the consumer through cost increases?</div></div>Companies pay out on 'bullshit' lawsuits, which of course the courts permit to go forward, then the same companies pass-on their increased business cost by raising the price of their product? Interesting theory.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Immorteq</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You think my neighbor is going to sue me for stupid things...</div></div>Yes: Because you will be putting your neighbor in charge of the legal definition of what a 'stupid thing' is.
 
#20
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

Graham,

I've got to hand it to you. Due to the fact that not one single response has commented a single thing regarding torte OR croque en bouche. This leads me to believe that nobody is on the same page, and almost no-one is paying attention.

What is your opinion towards the Vinaterte? Not quite like the Magna-Carta, but it definitely has it's place.

wink.gif
 
#21
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sean the Nailer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham,...What is your opinion towards the Vinaterte?</div></div>LOL! It's Vinatarta over here, and it's very rich. You've got to let the dough rest at first, then boil the prunes well. You'll need a good double boiler for that. Slice very thin, and enjoy.
laugh.gif
 
#23
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

As far as I'm concerned the mother should be charged for killing her kid. It's her own damned fault he's dead and if she want's to claim she didn't know the 4 cardinal rules of safe gun handling then that makes it even worse for her. I doubt she would let her kid drive a car without learning how first so she shouldn't handle a firearm without knowing how first. Any way you slice this she killed her kid because of her own incompetence. It's her own goddamn fault and she needs to realize it.
 
#24
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

I have heard for years about this going public on CNBC. Interesting that the info was finally put out for the news to report.
I have seen many of the documents about the triggers. It would be intersting to watch the report. Anyone have a copy of it or know were I can get one. I don't have a television.
Thanks

lanwickum at gmail dot com

p.s.
Mr blasty
You are in ignorant bastard that does not know the whole story and wasn't there to know what happened. If things were so simple you could run the world.
 
#25
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MueveloNYC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">@Graham,

Hmm interesting... Given that the 700 has seen a lot of combat in Iraq, I wonder if any of our boys here have experienced this with sand getting in there and affecting the connector?</div></div>

Start asking hunters who shoot rem 700s who has had accidental discharges while releasing the safety or unloading the rifle. Ever notice you can not buy a 700 with out a floorplate any more. The manuals say to unload via the floorplate. The x-trigger was made for what #1 reason?

I am NOT getting into an argument here. The ignorance is simply pissing me off. A lady killed her kid on accident. Rifle did NOT work as intended. I doubt she knew she was pointing the gun at her kid. I have 3 kids, they move very quickly, ecpesually when excited. I bet the kid was very excited to be out hunting.
 
#26
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

My dialup sucks but I cannot seem to find exactly which incident this is??? Is it the MT family over 10yrs ago when they arrived back at their horse trailer after elk hunting and the Mrs went to unload her 7mag and didn't know her son was on the other side of the horse trailer? If so this was an older rifle with the bolt lock when safety was engaged! Rifle fired when she released the safety???

If this is the case/incident being noted then she was damn sure more at fault then the rifle. IIRC reports when shortly after it happened were that trigger had been altered from factory, rifle was poorly maintained etc. This was the reason for the Rem trigger recall way back then that was advertised in every hunting mag, NRA mag etc. If you adjusted/messed with the trigger and set it incorrectly, put rifle on safe, pulled on trigger and took rifle off safe it would fire. Done it calling coyotes once, cold as hell and scared the shit out of me. However, I wasn't negligent enough to not know where my muzzle was pointed.

There were a bunch of reasons IMO that the gun owner was way more at fault for negligence, neglect and stupidity then the rifle manufacturer.

I guess if you can ummmmmm find a sympathetic attorney that uummmm thinks your ignorance, neglect, and carelessness didn't play a part then you go after the pantry with the most groceries in it, for the betterment of the children and the world of course. Surely not saying sleezy money grubbing ambulance chasing attorneys shouldn't get their 30-45+% out of the gross settlement. After all, it was their idea, their time and it was "for the children"

 
#27
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

Heh, montana old bud how ya doing? Never seen your responses until after I posted mine. Hope you don't get pissed at me? Wasn't this somewhere north of Bozeman/Livingston area?

I surely feel sorry for the family losing one of their children but from what I remember the lady didn't have a clue where her son was when she took the safety off. She had rifle pointed at the horse trailer and son was taking care of his horse on the other side. I am sure she wasn't expecting the rifle to discharge but 'not expecting' isn't a defense in my book??? "Not expecting" isn't a design flaw if it didn't leave the factory that way, but that is just my worthless .02 cents worth!!!!

I have tinkered with, adjusted, cleaned, repaired well over 100 Remington triggers and NEVER had a factory trigger that would do this other than the 1 mentioned above. After I readjusted it there were NO issues. Clearly MY fault and NOT Remingtons design. I know that 100 is a far cry from the tens of 1000's sold so perhaps isn't a fair comparison??????
 
#28
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

SD, pm sent before your last post. You know of accidents that happen to good people? I know a lady that ran over her kid. Heard people talk about how she was a crazy driver and I know they didn't know the whole story yet. Shit happens and after the fact anyone can find a way around it and blame someone. It just pisses me off when that happens. After the fact things can and should be investigated to prevent it from happening again. Info has came out showing for fact the triggers have potential to be faulty. I applaude the current owners of remington for taking care of this problem with the x-trigger.
Take care SD.

Lance
 
#31
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

I had an AD at the 300 yard line in a highpower comp once, flipped the safety off my Winchester and bam....went into the berm but my smith said that Winchester safeties had had the issue in teh past when they get worn enough. I had a jewell trigger also...

Can it happen? Yes - it's a mechanical device.

And Audi 4000's are baby killers ....(IF you are old enough to remember this)...I never bought the Audi4000 issue though, gas pedal was too close to the brake..
 
#34
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

Simply put.....guns aren't supposed to fire simply by moving the safety. If they do, it should be fixed. If your company makes a product that malfunctions.....expect to get sued.

It's a fact of business....
 
#35
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mgd45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Simply put.....guns aren't supposed to fire simply by moving the safety. If they do, it should be fixed. If your company makes a product that malfunctions.....expect to get sued.

It's a fact of business.... </div></div>

Doesn't make it right.Have to agree with Bolt on this one.My guess is most of these occurences happen after some wannabe gunsmiff does a trigger job outside of Remingtons control.
 
#36
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

Geez... I didn't mean to start a fight here. That's not my intention I'm not a troll... Lets get the issues separated here.

1. Who's really at fault of the son's death (even if it be accidental): IMO Mother. Main reason being she's handling a loaded firearm without keeping in mind where the muzzle is pointed. The fact that she was attempting to disengage the safety shows intent to fire. Standard procedure for operating a firearm dictates point muzzle in safe direction with finger off trigger, aim toward your target, disengage saftey, move finger to trigger, squeeze.

2. Yes, there's definitely a malfunction going on (I really had to read up on this overnight before making my personal call on this). The gun is discharging when the safety is disengaged if the thing has debris in it. Other manufacturers of rifles who have misfires like this (most recent of S&W pistol came to mind) have recalled for this purpose. If this is happening frequently to warrant a recall it should be done.

3. The issue of personal opinion of #2 should be blamed for #1. Obviously this is where this case is going, where personally I feel that no, as in this case operator is at fault as you should never fully trust a safety of a firearm. Hunter's education teaches you this, CCW teaches you this, the NRA teaches you this, heck they told me this when I was a cub scout too! Always treat every firearm as if it were loaded, and be sure you're ok with whatever the muzzle is pointing at being completely destroyed if it did happen to fire (ie: point it at a safe direction).

The person who mentioned the car as an example. Another example I can come up with is household cleaning chemicals and prescription drugs. Yes there are safety caps on them, and for the most part, they do work. However, they're not infallible and should not be the solely be the only precautionary measure. You keep prescription drugs and dangerous household chemicals locked up somewhere away from infants/toddlers as they are dangerous and can kill. It's up to the operator/owner to take that into consideration and act accordingly.
 
#37
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

My M700 did this. I bought it used, so I don't know what had ever been done to it, but it worked fine when I bought it. This was the old style M700 that you couldn't work the bolt with the safety engaged.

The trigger pull started getting very hard, and then the rifle wouldn't stay cocked when the bolt was raised. But, if you raised the bolt, put the gun on safe, and closed the bolt, it would stay cocked. Then, when the safety was released the gun would fire.

I had a smith work on it, he said the trigger was dirty. I suppose something got in the way of the sear engagement. I got it fixed and had the trigger worked on. No problems since.
 
#38
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MueveloNYC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Story gets deeper:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/17/eveningnews/main301947.shtml

Here's the main issue. Mother was handling the firearm, and was turning the safety off while her son was in front of the rifle. (seriously WHY?). Always point the muzzle in a safe direction and don't mess with the firearm unless you're absolutely ok to destroy what the muzzle is pointed at...

Yes, the story is tragic, but a death could've been avoided if they followed the cardinal rules of firearms handling. </div></div>


Or if the rifle was NOT fitted with a bolt lock mechanism. Remington deleted the bolt lock feature on Feb. 26, 1982 - to allow the gun handler to unload the rifle with the safety in the on safe position.

According to company documents: "To put the company in a more secure position with respect to product liability" Apparently Remington failed to provide this memo to the public at the time of the bolt lock deletion, nor until AFTER the the boy in Montana was killed, which resulted in the Safety Modification Program that was initiated sometime in 2002 - which was in part as a direct result of the boy's death.
 
#39
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MueveloNYC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">@Graham,

Hmm interesting... Given that the 700 has seen a lot of combat in Iraq, I wonder if any of our boys here have experienced this with sand getting in there and affecting the connector? </div></div>

Short answer, yes!
 
#40
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmg308</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mgd45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Simply put.....guns aren't supposed to fire simply by moving the safety. If they do, it should be fixed. If your company makes a product that malfunctions.....expect to get sued.

It's a fact of business.... </div></div>

Doesn't make it right.Have to agree with Bolt on this one.My guess is most of these occurences happen after some wannabe gunsmiff does a trigger job outside of Remingtons control. </div></div>

Not entirely true... what about new rifles still within the custody of the company that have inadvertently discharged within the confines of the plant during testing after final assembly??

Maybe we should all hold on to our opinions until after the documentary airs, hopefully we will all be a lot more educated about certain facts surrounding this issue afterword ;O)
 
#41
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

Remington has had a recall on M700 triggers for years because of this. And there are still people that won't get it fixed.

The last I heard, Remington was also checking every rifle that is sent in for any kind of repair/alteration to see if the trigger meets their specs. If it doesn't off it comes and one of theirs goes on. Got an aftermarket trigger on it? It won't be there when you get the rifle back and they won't return the one you had on there. Not hard to figure out why, "Your honor, when that rifle was last in our possession we made sure it meet our specifactions by installing a trigger that did. That trigger has been altered/removed and therefor we are not liable".
 
#42
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

Safety is a 24/7 proposition. You may jump the candlestick a thousand times but one time you just might get burnt. Never let a firearm be pointed at anything you want to keep intact period. A 700 or a Glock they all tend to do bad things to wherever gets shot.
 
#43
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

That's equally a valid point. Maintenance is part of upkeep. If you don't maintain the safety of anything in a proper manner it will fail. If you don't get your emergency brake cable tightened and tested, one day your car is going to roll downhill and kill someone. Guess what, you can't sue the car company for that. Maintenance is the owner's responsibility.

Anyhow yesterday I'll have to check my LTR TWS 700, but remembering from range use I think I have to disengage the safety to open the bolt. I can't quite recall as the ranges I use it at require the bolt always be open and unloaded (the best safety), and if you're walking the field, flag in the bolt. So I can't quite recall with how the bolt opens with the saftey as I rarely use it since we're required to keep the bolt open.

@Agustus, actually you're right. Someone did mention to me a few years ago that scout snipers used a boot blouser tie to actually pull the safety lever all the way back and tie it back so that it would stay put when idle. I guess maintenance and cleaning out the assembly (or sending it for repair) is part of the culprit. But as one of the above poster's have stated, there seems to be warning signs that something is wrong before this happens.
 
#44
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BOLTRIPPER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....still way too many barristers</div></div>Only because you and your misfortunes have kept them very well-fed.
grin.gif
 
#45
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Immorteq</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Torte reform. They have nothing to lose by spinning the wheel. If the ambulance chasing extornionist and their accomplice/s were responsible for the defense fees if they lose the case, we wouldn't have to pay so much for our firearms (or healthcare, or automobiles, or etc etc)! </div></div>Seriously?! First of all, I happen to favor Torte. I am also partial to croque en bouche. Secondly, you lack a grasp of basic economics. It looks to me like you are simply repeating what you heard from others. If you think about it for just one second you'll see that making the loser responsible for the attorney fees of the winner would favor access to the courts for only the rich and powerful - the very same people you are criticizing. </div></div>

That's not entirely the case. In a vacuum I suppose I agree, but that would assume all change ends with that change in tort law.
Countries that have the loser pays version of tort reform saw a natural formation of new insurance markets. The insurance - court payment insurance. Where insurance is purchased based on the merit of the case. Good case, cheap insurance. Bad case - expensive or no insurance. Protecting the poor or middle class person who has been wronged and enabling worthy cases to go forward, however still discouraging the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" cases.

I'm a big fan, free market wins again. I believe there is an economics lesson in there to somewhere.
 
#46
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

The M24 has a completely different trigger than the standard trigger. So the rifles in Iraq may have an discharge but it is not becasue of this same problem.

I have personaly never had a discharge with any of my 700 rifles but I know my dad did have one with an older rifle that the safety had to be turned off before opening the bolt. Since I have learned of this problem a few years ago all of my rifles have been converted over to 40x triggers. The new rifles I have had come in have all had 40x trigger in them from the factory. I know the regular rem 700 also has had a new trigger in them for the last few years but I have no experience with it.
 
#47
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Inogame</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm a big fan, free market wins again. I believe there is an economics lesson in there to somewhere.</div></div>The lesson is that there is no such thing as a 'free' market.

And I'm not so sure that insurance companies winning is the same as the free market winning. Our latest example, the national health care plan, should be evidence enough of that.

Some people believe that we live under a system in which one can sue anyone for anything at anytime, but the reality is otherwise. There is no such thing as a 'throw it against the wall' case. I continues to amaze me that people who know nothing about bringing lawsuits are always the first to cry for reforms that they can't properly explain. It makes no sense to use value-judgment terms like "Good" lawsuits and "Bad" lawsuits without giving any context about how the legal system is structured to perform the function of sifting the good cases from the bad.

I haven't seen that many frivolous lawsuits. And the few I have seen were dealt with swiftly by the system. But I have seen countless frivolous defenses by insurance companies. Careful what you wish for: you may get it and be prevented from recovering for your injuries.
 
#48
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Inogame</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm a big fan, free market wins again. I believe there is an economics lesson in there to somewhere.</div></div>The lesson is that there is no such thing as a 'free' market.

And I'm not so sure that insurance companies winning is the same as the free market winning. Our latest example, the national health care plan, should be evidence enough of that.

Some people believe that we live under a system in which one can sue anyone for anything at anytime, but the reality is otherwise. There is no such thing as a 'throw it against the wall' case. I continues to amaze me that people who know nothing about bringing lawsuits are always the first to cry for reforms that they can't properly explain. It makes no sense to use value-judgment terms like "Good" lawsuits and "Bad" lawsuits without giving any context about how the legal system is structured to perform the function of sifting the good cases from the bad.

I haven't seen that many frivolous lawsuits. And the few I have seen were dealt with swiftly by the system. But I have seen countless frivolous defenses by insurance companies. Careful what you wish for: you may get it and be prevented from recovering for your injuries. </div></div>

There are trivial lawsuits that are filed and cost hundreds of millions. It's estimated we all spend a couple grand a year just to cover them. All costs are spread to consumers, not absorbed by the producers. The perception of what frivolous or not is fine and an opinion that can definitely be argued with merit, but my opinion is plenty are still ridiculous and specifically structured to fit into the risk reward system utilized by most companies. It's cheaper to make it go away does happen, and happen often. Some of the most successful tort lawyers know this system well.
Loser pays systems do work.
Demonizing insurance companies seems popular these days, but hardly shows much practical knowledge of the industry. This evil industry that has protected people from crippling losses for centuries. Economics teaches me that people will pay for services if the market dictates a need... it also tells me that people will pay for services if they have merit.
I do find interesting synergies with your attitude on what people know about lawsuits... synergies with insurance, and moreover economics.
People who know little or nothing about the insurance they pay for who are upset about not getting a payout for something they are not covered for...
People who know nothing about economics assume that markets can only be affected by single changes and don't operate dynamically with several variables... or can evolve to form new markets.

Loser pays does not abandon the poor rendering the civil law system to a rich man only club. There are real world examples refuting it. No matter if you hate insurance or not, it is a free market solution to a perceived problem.
So you don't think loser pays is viable because it may force people to invest in private insurance if they don't have the means to finance themselves, or worse cannot risk the capital they have just in case. That is a fine argument, and in my opinion has merit. I urge you to approach the argument that way. Saying there is no alternative for poor or middle class people in that system though can be proved wrong quite easily, with or without knowledge of economics.
 
#49
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

It seems however that the majority of lawyers/attorneys look at things a bit different than us commoners!!!!! Their justifications it seems is all about the 'good deed' to society and not about the money but what percentage of large settlements are pro bono????

Graham, care to share your occupation? Just for giggles?????
smile.gif
 
#50
Re: CNBC to expose Remington on 700 phantom discharge

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SDWhirlwind</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems however that the majority of lawyers/attorneys look at things a bit different than us commoners!!!!! Their justifications it seems is all about the 'good deed' to society and not about the money but what percentage of large settlements are pro bono????</div></div>I don't know: What percentage of large settlements have had significant costs advanced, with no guarantee of a recovery, by attorneys on behalf of poor people who could not otherwise afford to bring their claims against large corporations?

There is no inherent contradiction between making money and wearing the white hat. Pro bono work has its place in the system. So do class actions. So do statutues that award plaintiffs attorney fees and make civil lawyers the equivalent of private Attorneys General.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SDWhirlwind</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham, care to share your occupation? Just for giggles?????
smile.gif
</div></div>Unlike some others who have posted on this topic I do know what I am talking about.

Whether one identifies as a Liberal or a Conservative, the important thing in my view is not to be a victim of political propaganda by simply repeating what you hear other people say on your favorite cable news channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
2024 Legion Memorial Run and Gun, Honoring the Fallen as a Family
Replies
13
Views
856
FatBoy
F
hermosabeach
Remington 700 - Trigger Recall- class action settlement
Replies
18
Views
1K
Maxduty
Maxduty
Paulie771
AAR: K&M Precision's 4 Day Comprehensive Precision Rifle course, Oct 9-12, 2021 (Long)
Replies
4
Views
1K
mountainman308
M
B
A story
Replies
18
Views
2K
6.5SH
6
sirhrmechanic
Just thought this merited a re-post... A bit late, but, hey. Worth the read.
Replies
41
Views
3K
sirhrmechanic
sirhrmechanic
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts