The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Dangermouse wrote:Halodin,

That is an interesting theory regards being given a manual with the product. In this electronic age and one where companies are looking to save the planet / reduce costs, it is becoming more common to purchase items and find the user instructions are on the manufacturers web sites.
I know the instructions for the LR9mm are on the internet,

DM

phaedra1106 wrote:Halodin, thanks for the input. Luckily neither of us were hurt, both rifles failed with exactly the same resultant damage.

Defending a product liability claim

If someone sues you under product liability laws, your first step is to consider who is liable. If you are a distributor, such as a shop, you may not be liable if you can identify the original producer.

If you’re the producer and you believe the problem was caused by a fault in your production process, you may want to admit liability and settle the claim. Alternatively, you will need to prove one of six defences:
1.You did not supply the product. For example, you are not liable if a product is stolen or is a fake copy of one of your products.
2.You could not reasonably be expected to discover the safety fault. For example, if scientific evidence first comes to light after you have manufactured or sold your product.
3.The safety fault was an inevitable result of obeying other laws.
4.Someone else caused the fault after you supplied the product.
5.You didn’t supply the product in the course of business. For example, the law does not apply to private gifts.
6.If you make components, you are not liable if you can show that the manufacturer who assembled the product caused the fault. For example, the manufacturer might have made a poorly designed product or ordered the wrong components from you.

You can’t defend yourself simply on the basis that a user was careless. But if you can show that they contributed to a problem, the amount of damages may be reduced.

If Trading Standards take enforcement action against you under product safety rules, you can also choose to defend yourself. You need to prove you did everything that could reasonably be expected. If you’re successful, you may get compensation for any loss suffered - eg if Trading Standards destroyed your goods.

You should be aware that court cases are usually expensive and complicated. Take professional legal advice before taking any action.

HALODIN wrote:Thanks for taking the time to post the photos, it's appreciated. I read on the other SGC thread that there are 4 known catastrophic failures of this rifle, do all 4 show the same signs of failure?

Chuck wrote:Craig: here might be a good place to start trawling for answers or clues.

https://www.gov.uk/product-safety-for-manufacturers

https://www.gov.uk/product-liability-and-safety-law

saddler wrote:

ovenpaa wrote:One failure in the field is hardly a trend of failures...

ONE = I'd agree 100%

I know of FOUR, one being Jeff's

phaedra1106 wrote:

HALODIN wrote:Thanks for taking the time to post the photos, it's appreciated. I read on the other SGC thread that there are 4 known catastrophic failures of this rifle, do all 4 show the same signs of failure?

Which other thread?, as far as I know there's only the two failures, one of the Aberdeen club guys had his refunded as not fit for purpose and I think the other one is still using it with continuing feed problems.