There is an interesting development in gun technology this week with the announcement of the release of the first so-called “smart gun” to hit the market. The Smart System iP1, a .22-caliber pistol made by the German gun-maker Armatix GmbH, can only function with an accompanying wristwatch. As explained below, this gun and similar new models in the works could have an impact on torts liability for gun manufacturers.
The Smart System iP1 is activated by a RFID-equipped watch that transmits the PIN number needed to operated the gun. Absent the watch, a red light remains on the weapon to show that it is incapacitated. It is technology that could substantially reduce accidental shootings at home as well as cases where officers have their guns taken from them in shootings.
I have long discussed this new technology is discussing the implications for product liability cases. There have been lawsuits against gun manufacturers for “Saturday Night specials” and other models under both product liability and nuisance claims. They have been uniformly unsuccessfully as falling short of the standards for proximate cause, defective designs, and other elements. However, we have discussed how new technology can change that equation by making alternative designs more affordable and convenient. We are still not there yet. The new gun will cost $1,399 and the watch retails for another $399. That is pretty pricey. Moreover, some will argue that they want guns to be exchangeable with others in a household or do not like the necessity of wearing a ring or watch.
The question is what will happen when the technology gets smaller and more affordable. There is a chance that “dumb” guns will be viewed as defective. At one time, seat belts and air bags were viewed as extravagances. Personalized guns, or smart guns, can use RFID chips or other proximity devices as well as fingerprint recognition or magnetic rings. Magnetic ring guns are already available. There are even new designs that would allow biometric sensors in the grip and trigger known as (DGR) Dynamic Grip Recognition, which the New Jersey Institute of Technology says can distinguish an owner with 90% accuracy.
Under the two basic tests for product defects such new designs can change the legal equation. Under the Second Restatement test of 402A, product design is defective is it is more dangerous than the expectations of the ordinary consumer. New technology can shape such expectations as smart guns become more prevalent. Under the Third Restatement, “a product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design … and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.” This could be claimed as such an alternative design if the costs come down and there is no real alteration in functionality.
While the public safety benefits are obvious, the NRA has generally opposed these guns as having the potential for gun control options in future legislation. In all honesty, it could. While the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals have Second Amendment rights to bear arms, it did not rule out reasonable limitations. Mandatory safety designs would likely pass muster in some cases. Torts and technology have long had a unique relationship in the law. This is one technology that may be coming not only to a store but a courtroom near you.
Kel-Tec excluded….
Let me know…
Maybe that’s the fundamental problem with the way our police force is trained…. Shoot to kill…. You said it best…. And just if you’re curious…. I have anywhere from a .22 to .45 including .9mm …. But then again I’m not out to kill anyone….. You know what kind of recoil a 9 has compared to a .45….. When you pick yourself up left me know….
AY: Self defense and assassination aren’t the same thing. Two Mossad agents shooting a terrorist 20 times with .22s is far different from someone in a home that hears an intruder. Tell me about the .22lr guns used by the Israeli military, you know, regular soldiers, not guys who ambush singular targets. And you dodged my question. Point to one police force that ISSUES .22 lr guns to its officers. Backup guns are small because they have to be. Let me know how many cops you see with those as their primary firearm. In fact, suggest to one that he should drop his nine millimeter or .40 in favor of a .22lr. Good god, are you really arguing this? .22lr is designed to kill small game. As a backup or last resort, it’s better than fists, but that’s about it.
I also think some perspective is necessary regarding accidental deaths. This is from the CDC. 2010 is the latest year available. All of the following are for accidental deaths.
Poisoning: 33041
Falls: 26009
Drowning: 3782
And now firearms. Surely given the enormous number of guns in our country, over 300 million, and somewhere between 35 and 40 million households with guns, and given the numbers for those other causes, the number must be huge:
606
Well Jason…. If it’s good enough for the Mossad…. And the Israeli army…. I guess it good enough for me to be afraid of its use here by LEO….. And yes… A number of back up pieces that LEOs use here are .22lr or .25 …. You don’t really want to know how I know that….
AY: A .22 is a gun and as such can kill people. Yeah, less recoil, quieter etc. However, the “rattle around the brain” thing is a firearm urban legend, it’s nonsense.
Just in case you didn’t know.
Ask yourself this. If .22lr is such a great caliber, surely law enforcement and the military use it, right? If you’ve got a few minutes, see how many police or military forces issue .22lr to their regular personnel. Now why wouldn’t a cop or soldier want a gun with little recoil and size that would allow for carrying a huge amount of extra ammo?
Oh for god’s sake, I was just alerted to this. From page five of the gun’s manual: “The iP1 pistol is intended for target shooting only…” In other words, “We don’t trust our own technology enough to consider this a fully functioning gun, here’s some lawsuit proofing.” Note that all over their website and promotional material, the gun is promoted as if it’s an actual gun usable for self defense.
Well Jason,
The .22 is an acceptable weapon for hit men…. Preferred choice…. If I recall…. Less blow back… Less of a sound…. And the bullett will rattle the brain and not exit….. Just Incase you didn’t know…..
This specific gun is worthless for anything other than punching holes in paper. .22 is not an acceptable caliber for self defense. It’s better than harsh language, but that’s about it.
But more generally, the problems with this type of system are too many to count. Wearing the watch flags you as armed, something that the typical concealed carrier (and frankly the public) does not want to happen. If my normal shooting hand is injured or there is some other reason I need to fire with my weak hand, no dice. If the gun is for home defense and a second person needs to get the gun, they will need your watch. Not too practical in an emergency situation.
I have a proposal. Before this tech is required, force the police to be the guinea pigs. I have a feeling law enforcement, who supposedly need this tech the most, will lose their minds at the notion of having to use them. Interestingly, the New Jersey smart gun law *exempts* the police from having to use it. Hmmm.
Almost all of the problems this proposes to solve are already solvable for free or little money. The prevention of child accidents is a matter of a simple lockbox or trigger lock. For adults or teens old enough to understand, following the four rules are free and pretty much 100% effective. You will virtually never read about an accidental shooting that didn’t violate several of those rules. This technology will not prevent the idiot showing off his gun and pulling the trigger because he’s sure that it’s not loaded. How about the Navy SEAL who, while drunk, was trying to impress a woman with his gun. He put the gun to his head because it was “unloaded” and pulled the trigger. Alcohol is a hell of a drug, he forgot the one in the chamber.
Stupidity is a disease you can’t fully cure. And damn near all accidents are caused by it, not “defective” guns.
One problem with the chip is the gun can still be taken away and used against you…. The biometric handles the process differently…
YouTube will have videos on how to make it shoot without the wristband within months….someone ALWAYS figures it out!!
Put a HAL chip in them Dave.
This German company will be using their guns on themselves soon!
Product liability attorneys are having champagne breakfasts across this litigious country. More things to go wrong. I worked cases defending foreign companies selling their products here in the US and there is always a shock factor for them w/ their first product lawsuit.
“Will New Technology Open Up A New Wave Of Liability Claims Over “Dumb” Guns?”
No. The new liability will rest with the new guns which make a higher claim to safety.
Surely the general liability principles of old guns are very well established in law and precedent?
Anyone shot with the new gun will have a claim against the manufacturer for defective technology that failed to prevent it.
The plus point is that your own gun could not easily be used against you, especially if its properties are not mentioned. It would be safer to have a micro chip in the hand do the same thing. More than 4″ away & it won’t fire, or whatever programed distance works best.
I’ve been looking at one of these…. The technology has a ways to go…. It can be defeated….. Then there is always the mossberg biometric technology…… It’s a little more difficult to defeat…. But not infallible….
Great! Just what this country needs, another gun. But I do respect the 2nd Amendment.
The first requirement of any defensive firearm is that it shoot when needed.
“Electronic” guns by definition are less reliable (just that many more components to fail).
I cannot see cops agreeing to carry these weapons (at least not until there have been many years of reliable use).
If cops won’t carry them, it will be a stretch to require civilians to use them.
I suspect that it will be many years before the “defective doctrine” will hold water (except in the 9th Circus where the flackos rule).