Conn. Jury Awards $3.4M to Man Injured Using Nail Gun

December 10, 2007

  • December 10, 2007 at 11:12 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How can the company be liabile for his incompetence? He fired the gun into METAL! If there was a warning not to use in metal, then give him nothing. It is sad that he is not the same since then, but if the accident was his fault, oh well. Another article said that the gun was made in such a way that it didn’t allow the person using it to react if it backfired. If he was using it improperly when it backfired, does that even matter?

  • December 10, 2007 at 11:21 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That’s one good lawyer and one dumb jury. This one should have been thrown out immediately. Any idiot that shoots a nail gun designed for wood into another surface deserves what they get. I hope the companies win on appeal.

  • December 10, 2007 at 11:29 am
    matt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    An even better How is How is **Home Depot** responsible? It’s one thing to sue a manufacturer alleging improper design/labeling, but looks like he successfully sued the retailer?

  • December 10, 2007 at 11:32 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    They must have played some home videos from before, then after while disabled. I could see how the attorney could prey upon the jury for sympathy. Unfortunately, when there is a person who cannot take care of him/herself anymore, objectivity goes out the window with any logical conclusions. It is sad that it happened to him, but to make others pay for his mistake?

  • December 10, 2007 at 1:37 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    so, how come someone whom has been in the business for 20 yrs construction not know how to properly use a nail gun? are going to tell me that he does not understand the proper use of a tool? this is not a manufacturing nor a retailer problem — the user and here again goes the act of responsibility. DID HE NOT READ DIRECTIONS? it’s not the company whom made the gun responsible, since it’s written in the directions. it’s not the retailer since they are selling the equipment. what happened to the user of the equipment? if he built the item, he should know its content. so does he really know that it was metal and not wood? does that mean he’s been incompetent for the past 20 yrs? um…surely do we now add the construction firm for having metal and not wood? um…another frivilous lawsuit only because he did the wrong thing and now does not want to pay his on consequences…

  • December 10, 2007 at 1:39 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is “who” not “whom” made the gun. I am not correcting you to be a jerk, but I have read a lot of your posts and you misuse that word a lot. Thought I should let you know. I agree with your post otherwise.

  • December 10, 2007 at 1:41 am
    Bill Reed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Let’s hear it for our legal system. How can anyone assess only 55% comparative to a moron who injures himself like this? This should have been a defense verdict, but no……in our badly flawed system somebody must pay….regardless of fault. A defense verdict would have punished the pltf. counsel by not providing him a fee. This case is fraud anyway because this plaintiff had no brain to begin with.

  • December 10, 2007 at 1:42 am
    Seriously? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    First, Dustin this is an insurance site, not Merriam Webster. Second, this suit is insane. I guess because I thought I could use my car underwater, than the maker and the dealership are liable if I drown while attempting that. This is a very sad situation but the insured must not have had disability insurance and needed funds from somewhere.

  • December 10, 2007 at 1:47 am
    Chuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The plaintiff did not utilize the product as intended – and they only found him 55% at fault?

    I sure hope there is an appeal…….

  • December 10, 2007 at 1:50 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The post was not to embarass anyone, but to help a fellow insurance professional. I guess trying to help is overrated.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*