This is why I try to learn from others mistakes.  Knock on wood. 

Thanks for the link.  That x-ray is horrifying.

Yup. Basic safety fundamentals would have prevented this.

I think it also shows that while under stress, you go back to muscle memory.  Train those safety fundamentals until you do them automatically.

I think there's also something to be said about the priorities we have at a subconscious level.
While the failure to follow all the rules of safe firearms handling set the stage for this what kicked the disaster into motion was him starting to loose his grip on his cell phone and trying to catch it while still having to hold the shotgun.  While his observation about not trying to catch a falling firearm is good advice it would have been far better if he's had his priorities straight and just let the phone fall to the floor and then pick it up while safely handling the shotgun.

All of us have seen the results of this type of instinctive/subconscious screw up on priorities....it's the folks who wreck their cars to avoid spilling their coffee or soda, that sort of thing.  Way back when I remember reminding myself over and over that when driving that control of the vehicle was the first priority and trumped everything else, so I will in fact  let the hot coffee spill rather than jerk the wheel or take my eyes off the road.    That's carried over into just about everything else...firearms, power tools, anything that has  the potential to bite me or someone else if I loose focus on what I'm doing.     I'm sure most of you know what I mean.

Anyway, somewhere in this guys head he obviously thinks of his phone as being more important  than handling his shotgun safely. 

I've heard before that if for whatever reason you drop your handgun, to never grab for it to try to catch it (due to one of your fingers snaking into the trigger guard by accident).

In the same vein, if you drop your gun, catch or no catch?

Don't try and catch falling objects, unless they are breakable.  I tried to catch a falling knife once.  No scar, but it hurt and bled.

I'm glad you're amused, but I meant the gun...   

Bolstering the case for not trying to catch a dropped shotgun - in this particular case a Mossberg 500:

The Mossberg 500 series and all of its variants, have the hammer sear located at the base of the hammer.  A second hammer stop sear is also located forward of the main sear.  Its purpose is to prevent the hammer from striking the firing pin in the event of primary sear failure or other unintended release due to severe shock.

 

After reading the article, and paying specific attention to the dumbass's description of himself and events, as well as considering his choice of weapon, it sounds like natural selection at work...

According to the article this was a "clone" of the Mossberg 500 so it may or may not have been a faithful reproduction.   

Well, the Mossberg 500 hit the market in 1960 as a single action bar design.  In 1970, after Remington's patent on "dual action bars" ran out, Mossberg altered the design to incorporate two slide bars.  Other than that, variations chambered for the 3.5" 12 gauge, the 590 series with easy clean out magazine tubes, and the Maverick 88 crossbolt safety version and so on.

So over time there have been some parts that don't interchange between variations.  However, to the best of my knowledge, the basic design of  a saftey stop on the internal hammer, (think of the saftey stop on the Series  80 Colt govt. mdl. hammer), has been a standard fixture in all Mossberg 500 variations. 

This can be demonstrated on any of the 500 series, by opening the action a very small amount from the full hammer down position. The slight opening will just move the internal hammer back to the stop notch/safety sear position. If the action is then completely closed again, the hammer will fall a very short distance from the safety stop position when the trigger is pulled.

I am not aware of any copies of the Mossberg 500 series being made by any other manufacturer.


 

Me either but I was reporting what was said in the article.   

I read it to mean one of the many "store brand" variants manufactured by Mossberg.  You are of course correct that the original article referenced did use the term "clone."