Comments on: Point Blank Wins Again

By: zjonas

zjonas — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:20:45 +0000

Wouldn’t the army be smarter to adopt the modular tactical vest and also refrain from trusting Point Blank and rather consider using which ever company it is that supplies the MTV to the marines which has proved very popular and resilient?

By: JAD

JAD — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:44:39 +0000

You knuckleheads might want to do some research before you make idiotic statements against Point Blank.
Gen. Larry Ellis is CEO of the Company.
None of you is probably worthy of licking his boots. Etc.

By: D

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:42:25 +0000

Dragonskin

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:56:27 +0000

The government could also give the manufacturer a free pass by asserting that a particular case or class of cases would require disclosure of state secrets for a claim or defense. Indeed, the state secrets defense was established in a product liability case in which the Air Force lied in litigation to secure the verdict it wanted in favor of the manufacturer.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:53:14 +0000

“Perhaps someone can answer: is there legal risk here? I mean, if someone is hurt or killed while wearing a substandard vest, could they sue the manufacturer? or does the fact that the government distributes these insulate the company?“
The short answer is that this is a really hard question. The biggest questions include:
(1) Is there an express warranty, an implied in fact warranty e.g. to comply with contract specifications, or an implied warranty? (2) Did the contract waive liability? (3) Was the buyer/user warned of the risks? (4) Was the design defective for a foreseeable use of the product? (5) Was the manufacturer negligent? (6) Was the unit in question a dud? (7) Is there any absolute or partial immunity connected with governmental use? (8) Is compliance with contract specifications a complete or partial defense that sets a duty of car? (9) Was there a superceding or intervening cause of the harm like hostile forces (or is that responsible for some percentage of the total damages)? (10) Does any right to sue belong to the federal government rather than the injured user, to the extent that the federal government provides compensation to the user? (11) What state or federal laws apply (e.g. law designated in a contract with the government, the UCMJ, the law of the soldier’s domicile, the law of the situ Pentagon contracting office in Virginia, the law of the state of manufacture or the manufacturerer’s headquarters, federal statutes, the local law of the place of the injury, different laws for different elements of the claim, etc.), (12) Is the risk insurable and was it in fact covered by insurance? (13) Were the harms suffered really from the product defect or did that in whole or in part have another cause (e.g. pre-existing injuries, medical malpractice, etc.).
This said, my gut instinct is that a court would be very reluctant to impose liability in the absence of a negligent, reckless or intentional failure to manufacture according to specification to a material degree at an excessive rate, and that any right to sue would belong to the federal government, rather than to soldier-users. If there defects were as a result of reckless or intentional for contract specifications, liability for punitive damages and criminal liability might also arise.
In the civilian context, liability is likely to be more expansive, probably requiring simply a showing of a design defect (although proving that would be hard).

By: Mark-Alan Lynch

Mark-Alan Lynch — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:46:52 +0000

Only in this corrupt administration would such a thing even be POSSIBLE. Who, in the world outside government, would ever grant a new multi-million dollar contract to a vendor that produced defective equipment? Oh, that’s right: the equipment is meant to save the lives of our service man and women and this administration has shown nothing but derision for those that are laying their lives on the line. Providing them with substandard, theoretically life-saving body armor is itself a crime. It’s a sad day when one considers government to the the “Enemy of the citizenry,” but that’s where “Average” Americans now exist.
God bless America– what’s left of it.

By: Vet

Vet — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:22:34 +0000

Have the executives of this company donated to the Republican party?

By: Pete Sheppard

Pete Sheppard — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:46:12 +0000

As an aside, Matt is referring to Rich Davis. He started Second Chance Body Armor, which was the first producer of soft body armor.
To demonstrate his vest, he would shoot himself with a [i].44 Magnum[/i], then shoot standard bowling pins off a table to prove he was using standard ammunition. This is also where the sport of “pin shooting” originated.
I have also seen Second Chance video where a man was shot at 3 feet with a 7.62 NATO round out of an FAL while wearing a vest while standing on one foot. All he had to do when hit was put his raised foot down to maintain balance.
Just a little history

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:18:06 +0000

The guy who first proved body armor could stop, at the time a .38 or .45, point blank proved it, by firing his weapon his pistol point blank into his own product as he wore it.
I say let the executives prove their products in the same manner. I will volunteer to shoot my AK-47 with a standard round then a tracer, must be supplied by the military, then, in addition, all other rounds that the body armor is supposed to protect our soldiers with into the vendors executives’ body with them wearing their product that they claim will protect our troops. If it works buy it if not then they should have tested it further. I am sure their company will supply burial plots.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:09:54 +0000

I just wanted everybody to know that I have seen the future in warfare,& it is Chinese SWAT members riding in on their targets.….on Segways.You just could not imagine the terror I’d feel if I was looking towards Chinese SWAT members facing me down while on Segways.Armed & dangerous.….and on Segways!!!!
Anyway,When haven’t our forces put up with faulty equipment? Whether it’s defective body armor,assault rifles that jam no matter how immaculate one tries to keep them(not to mention rounds that do not IMMEDIATELY put down their target,I don’t care how much khat,crack,crank,angel dust,ice,meth,etc. the “target“is on when they get shot by our troops).Vehicles with questionable armor protection(or vehicles with adequate protection but unable to maneuver where they are needed because they are too big).