TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

rotor wrote:I think he may win his case.
Check this out. https://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Rec ... -Exposure/

"People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot, if the conditions are right. Audiologists see this often, especially during hunting season when hunters and bystanders may be exposed to rapid fire from big-bore rifles, shotguns, or pistols. "

All he needs to claim is that the ear plugs did not adequately protect him and/or the instructions were insufficient. If you go to Honeywell website there are no instructions on how to use their earplugs.

I am sure the plaintiff has already lined up a good expert witness.

"Firearms are loud" says a PhD. Well, duh. What kind of hunters are doing rapid fire with bystanders around?
"People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot." What? If so then why does this helpful hint make sense? "Choose single-shot firearms instead of lever action, pump, or semi-automatic guns."

This guy sounds like a typical anti-gun liberal academic. Bet he's never held a job outside academia.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the report, just that there will probably not take very much to find an expert witness to convince a jury that the hearing loss was caused by a defective product or bad instructions. I think Honeywell will be the target here as they have the deep pockets. They claim that they have the best hearing protection product available. They may have a hard time proving it. Jury trials are not necessarily based on reality but on emotion. If there is a website or expert witness and the jury buys it than they will find for the plaintiff. Happens all the time in the medical world. Johnson and Johnson $60plus million suits for ovarian cancer and baby powder. Plenty of examples.

Understood and I agree. Any expert who makes conflicting statements like that should be easy target for a high paid defense attorney. The other issue I see with this case is you have a sitting judge who basically is saying he's too dumb to figure out how to put plugs in his ears.
But, like you said, he's got a chance to pull it off.
Suing gun manufacturers and anyone else associated with guns is part of the progressive socialist playbook, so this is not likely going to be an isolated case.

It is not clear to me how the case wound up in federal court. I would assume either a "double-filing" by plaintiff's attorneys or some type of removal action by the defendants.

If the case is kicked back to state court rest assured the Supreme Court of Texas, if the case ever gets that far, reviews these cases very carefully. The Vioxx case comes to mind decided several years back---the court reversed a multi-million dollar judgment against Vioxx and rendered a take-nothing judgment for the plaintiff on technical scientific and causation issues.

Maybe it's just me, but this sounds like a Democratic judge found a way to make a gun range spend a ton of money to defend itself in the hopes they would go bankrupt and have to close.

The same ear plugs used for shooting are used in industrial plants and construction sites all over the place (much more industrial/construction use than shooting use). I am sure the manufacturer has plenty of experience defending cases like this.

I read Honeywell's motion to dismiss the claims against the range and objections to the Plaintiff's expert reports. The plaintiff, a judge, should now better.

Chas.

What if the process in Texas to have someone adjudicated mentally incompetent?

rotor wrote:I think he may win his case.
Check this out. https://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Rec ... -Exposure/

"People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot, if the conditions are right. Audiologists see this often, especially during hunting season when hunters and bystanders may be exposed to rapid fire from big-bore rifles, shotguns, or pistols. "

The statement from the quoted article eems to conflict with itself

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I read Honeywell's motion to dismiss the claims against the range and objections to the Plaintiff's expert reports. The plaintiff, a judge, should [k]now better.

Chas.

You’d think so, but that standard doesn’t explain the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sorry Charles.... the devil made me do it.

A man visits an “emporium of ill repute” and fails to wear “protection” and catches a VD; so he sues the emporium. A man attends a rave and fails to wear a gas mask and catches a contact high, resulting an auto accident on the way home; so he sues the event hosts. A man goes to Vegas and fails to exercise discernment and loses a bunch of money on the roulette wheel; so he sues the casino.

All of these preposterous scenarios can be described thusly: the subject engages in [name an activity with attendant risks] and fails to [name steps necessary to mitigate those risks], resulting in [name a bad outcome]; so he sues the [name location/host/organizer] of the activity in question, and also sues [name provider of risk mitigant].

Millions of Americans every year enter shooting ranges all over the country, and shoot billions of rounds of ammunition without experiencing a catastrophic loss of hearing. They are able to do this because (A) they are using hearing protection and wearing it properly; and (B) if for some reason their hearing protection suddenly fails, they immediately leave the range and remove themselves to an area that is hearing safe.

It took a judge to screw this up. We know that he is either lying about wearing hearing protection properly, or lying about wearing it at all because he sustained hearing damage. We also know that he’s a moron because he stayed and fired an entire box of ammunition before exiting the range to seek relief for his damaged ears. And this guy is responsible for running a courtroom, hearing cases, and dispensing justice? Just wow.