Still don't believe any of this.
What you "believe" doesn't matter at all.....the design is lousy.A broken or missing pin is completely foreseeable,in which case the locking lugs would not engage;nevermind that it is likely a cheap hunk of metal,likely to break or fall out.....I mean the lugs would not engage when the bolt handle was turned down!What a complete piece of junk.....
In addition, there was testimony the rifle would still fire without the lugs engaging,sort of reminiscent of the old Ross rifle,or the old two piece firing pin of the original Springfield.Bad design.
Even a drunken,incompetent stiff shouldn't have to suffer having his face blown off by a cheap design of that type.Mossberg will likely get what they deserve for putting crap like that on the market.
Did you read the court document outlining the testimony about what he had to do to get it to fire? This meth head could have made an anvil shoot!
It doesn't matter at this stage of proceedings...A Motion for Summary Judgement is a procedural mechanism that allows the Court to "take away" the case from a jury because there are no material facts in dispute. The jury is the body that determines the facts in a case, not the Court.The Court merely found here that there are sufficient "facts" for the case to go to trial, therefore the MFSJ is (mostly) denied.
The Court is saying the root cause of the explosion appears to be a missing or defective pin(the experts seem to disagree which it was,presenting an issue of "material fact"),either of which situation would have prevented the lugs from engaging...whether the pin was missing, or broken,and what effect the actions of the Plaintiff had to do with this,is a question for a jury to decide,and presents an issue of fact at this stage of proceedings.
For purposes of a Motion for Summary Judgement,these are factual issues that must be determined by a jury(Trier of Facts),instead of by the Court(who applies the law)......all this decision says is that the case should go to trial(the jury).There is as yet no determination on the issue of liability resulting from this ruling.
All the stuff about the Plaintiff pounding on the bolt, tossing the rifle around, breaking it, and contributing to his own injury,is saved for trial later on.....however it may not matter in the end.....depends on how the facts (who the jury believes)squares out with the law on Product Liability.
