Of course, a new trial was requested. That is preliminary to filing an appeal and extends the deadlines for filing of said appeal. It ALWAYS happens in EVERY civil case REGARDLESS of whether a judgment is appealed or not. To fail to do so WOULD BE MALPRACTICE. Therefore, nothing can be read into the fact that a new trial has been requested.
Secondly, I don't place all that much weight in the 40% negligence thing either. Since I can't read the judgment, nor do I have access to the trial transcript, I can't exactly tell the jury's reasoning. However, I suspect it had something to do with hand loading.
Now, given that most of the American public is not savvy on shooting and even many of those who are, aren't savvy on hand loading, I'm not too surprised. Give a litigation team of four or five lawyers at $500 an hour five or six years of expert opinions, depositions, and forensic recreations and they'll make hand loading look like something that best belongs in the medieval laboratory of Dr. Faustus, with loads conjured by the Devil, that only a righteous and pure firearm designed by God himself could withstand. So, actually, finding Thompson Center 60% at fault is pretty damned impressive.
