Couple bring Smith & Wesson under fire with suit
By: Lynn LaRowe – Texarkana Gazette – Published: 07/30/2008
A Rosston, Ark., couple are suing Smith & Wesson in federal court because of a serious injury allegedly caused by a .460 Magnum revolver.
Todd Brown bought an S&W .460 Magnum revolver last fall. When he tried using it to shoot a deer the day after Christmas, gases escaping from the gun’s barrel severed his thumb, the suit alleges.
“Todd then lowered the gun to see if he had hit the deer, and as he was looking for the deer in the moments following the shot he saw blood shooting up in the air and on his gun and clothes, and he looked and saw that his thumb had been severed from his left hand and there was a deep gash in the flesh of the palm of his left hand extending up to his index finger …” the suit alleges.
Brown decided to purchase the weapon after watching a hunting show promoting the gun’s use to hunt bigger game, such as deer, the suit states. Brown bought the revolver, a scope and a holster from an authorized S&W dealer in Hope, Ark., on Dec. 21, 2007, for $1,896.58.
On Dec. 26, the opening day of the Christmas deer hunt, Brown tried to use the revolver to shoot a deer.
Monticello, Ark., attorney Cliff Gibson III filed the suit on Brown’s behalf July 18.
Smith & Wesson President and Chief Operating Officer Leland Nichols said the company could not comment on the suit and had not yet been served with a copy of the complaint.
The suit blames Brown’s injuries on alleged negligence by Smith & Wesson.
The first area of negligence the suit alleges is in the gun’s design. The suit asserts that S&W should have had the foresight to”design away” the risk of harm posed by”… the extraordinarily powerful gases expelled through the barrel-cylinder gap …”
The likelihood that a hunter might move a hand forward on the gun’s barrel when trying to site an animal should have been anticipated by S&W and factored into the gun’s design, the suit states.
“This negligence includes … the failure to reduce the length and weight of the gun barrel, the failure to increase the length of the cylinder, the failure to otherwise provide for better balance of the gun’s hefty weight, and the failure to provide a larger and more robust pistol grip for necessary two-handed firing of this heavy high-powered gun,” the complaint states.
S&W should have realized hunters in the woods won’t always have a convenient place to rest the weighty gun when firing, the suit alleges.
“Smith and Wesson consequently knew or had reason to know that while hunting in the woods and fields Todd Brown would have to support the heavy weight of this gun while shooting same solely by the strength of his hands and arms, thereby making it likely and probable that hunters, including Todd, would move his free hand forward and closer to the extremely dangerous barrel-cylinder gap in order to support and balance the gun while sighting-in the game,” the suit alleges.
The suit also alleges S&W failed to conduct enough testing on the gun before placing it on the market.
Warnings that might have alerted Todd Brown to the alleged dangers of the gun didn’t exist, the suit states.
“Further, Smith & Wesson was negligent in failing to give Todd Brown a reasonable and adequate warning and instruction respecting the nature, extent and severity of the danger of the devastating injury and harm (i.e. it will cut your hand off) presented to a shooter by its Model 460 Magnum Revolver,” the suit alleges.
The Browns are asking a jury in the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado division, to award them damages for Todd Brown’s”… great, grievous and permanent injury to his person, past and future medical expense necessary to treat and care for his injuries, past and future pain, suffering and mental anguish, past and future loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, and scars and disfigurement to his person,” the suit said.
They also want compensation for Kathy Brown’s”loss of consortium.”
