Let's sue Glock!

Glenn E. Meyer · August 1, 2012, 04:58 PM

http://www.policeone.com/legal/artic...-to-sue-Glock/

So this guy has a gun in the back seat which his kid could find and then shoots him. Shouldn't he be prosecuted for allowing a kid access to the gun? If the kid shot himself, won't prosecuting Daddy be legit?

Whose fault is this one?

Gunnut17 · August 1, 2012, 05:07 PM

Sue glock because one of their guns was left around and someone got hurt?

That's like suing a car manufacturer because one of their cars was used in a hit-and-run.

**Tom Servo** · August 1, 2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Whose fault is this one?

Wait. Let me think, here. Multinational corporation with gobs of cash...

Yep! Sue Glock! They were criminally negligent by virtue of not having put a warning label on the gun itself advising against its use by anyone ten and under.

Glock may settle. They've done that routinely in the past, even when they haven't been at fault. Of course, that's before the "victim" made a huge deal of it in the media, so they may choose to stand and fight on this one.

Stressfire · August 1, 2012, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Enrique Chavez, who claimed his service pistol, a Glock 21 handgun, had a light trigger pull and lacked a grip safety, an attached device that requires deactivation before firing.

Wouldn't such features make this weapon not included on California's "Safe Gun" list? If not, maybe it should be. Thankfully this man (and his progeny) are around to show us the error of our ways.

CWKahrFan · August 1, 2012, 05:29 PM

Yeah, well... We all know the usual script with these dramas... Some ambulance-chasing lawyer approaches the guy and talks him into filing the lawsuit on spec so with nothing to lose and a "maybe" to make some $ he says "OK".

No big deal.

RamItOne · August 1, 2012, 06:15 PM

The grip safety on my 1911 has got to be much lighter than a flocks tigger pull. I can buy the argument making an extra step to fire but not that a grip safety would be too stiff for the kid.

From Glenn's link

The California Second Court of Appeal said Tuesday a jury could conclude a grip safety strong enough to withstand a 3 year-old's grasp "would minimize the risk of accidental discharge without undermining performance," and in a 3-0 ruling, allowed the case to continue.

Isk · August 1, 2012, 06:48 PM

Interesting that they went with the grip safety argument instead of the thumb safety. It isn't clear if they are making a negligence or products liability claim on this.

sigcurious · August 1, 2012, 07:12 PM

@Stressfire, by current standards yes, but guns already on the list get to stay on the list as long as the maker keeps paying the state even if they don't meet the most current revisions. Beyond that it was his service pistol, not a personal pistol, and even then LEO are exempt from the list in CA.

It's completely his fault, I'm just glad the kid is young enough that he likely won't remember shooting his own father.

It is a misdemeanor or felony to allow a child to access a firearm in California depending on the outcome of that access, but I'm guessing since he was an officer at the time the DA didn't bring charges. It was probably viewed as a tragic accident rather than gross negligence and child endangerment.

We get those nifty cable locks thanks to California law(I still haven't found a use for them, maybe if I had a tiny bike), perhaps he should have utilized one, or any of the many other options to properly secure a firearm from a child.

Strafer Gott · August 1, 2012, 07:15 PM

A dollar or a donut, take your pick it's about safe trigger and/or lack of externals. Can you really get whacked for being too user friendly? Tell me if I'm out of line here, is it ergonomics or safety at issue?
The guy should be grateful if a judge would call it poetic justice and be done.

jmortimer · August 1, 2012, 08:35 PM

My fellow ambulance chasers will take a weak case like this one with big damages over a great case with small damages all day long. That is all that is going on here, trip and fall lawyer with big general and special damages case and idiot client. Would not surprise me if this was filed in Los Angeles Central Division (Downtown) Superior Court. All in all, unfortunately, this is a "great case."

Al Norris · August 1, 2012, 09:32 PM

Glenn, I caught this a couple of weeks ago over at Calguns.net. We had a large thread on this, back in 2008, before we shut down the L&P forum:

LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

It should come as no surprise that a CA appellate court decided the ex-cop could sue, based upon the lack of safety on a Glock... A gun that can't be purchased in CA, unless you are LE.

teeroux · August 1, 2012, 09:36 PM

You know whats really worse than him sueing. That this is the character of a man that was working as a Law Enforcement Officer. I'm LE and I would be so ashamed for what I represent over an incident like that happening, much less to ever try a suit as if it wasn't my own fault.

sigcurious · August 1, 2012, 10:33 PM

@Al, Gen 3s are on the roster. Gen 4s are not, however they can still be single shot exempted. But given the time of this it was a Gen 3 or older, g21 anyway.

MTT TL · August 1, 2012, 10:33 PM

I am not familiar with the "Can't be fired by a 3 year old" safety standard. I am familiar with the "Don't leave your loaded gun where your 3 year old can find it and play with it" rule however. But if Glock can be found 10% at fault that might pay the lawyer fees....

TXAZ · August 1, 2012, 10:42 PM

1) It's a tragedy
2) Who left the gun out
3) What state was this in?...

Between the 9th Circuit frequently overturned decisions and the thought processes commonly found in California, is this really a surprise?

California, sprechen zie Tort Reform?

Al Norris · August 1, 2012, 11:36 PM

Sigcurious, thanks for that reminder!

Way too many snags in CA gun laws for any one person to remember, if you don't live there.

sigcurious · August 2, 2012, 12:18 AM

I recently moved across the border to NV from CA, so they're still fresh.

Jack_Bauer24 · August 2, 2012, 08:21 AM

Look at the state it happened in, need I say more.

Stressfire · August 2, 2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigcurious

@Stressfire, by current standards yes, but guns already on the list get to stay on the list as long as the maker keeps paying the state even if they don't meet the most current revisions. Beyond that it was his service pistol, not a personal pistol, and even then LEO are exempt from the list in CA.

I was being facetious more than anything

Quote:

We get those nifty cable locks thanks to California law(I still haven't found a use for them, maybe if I had a tiny bike), perhaps he should have utilized one, or any of the many other options to properly secure a firearm from a child.

I found a pretty good use for the one I got with my GP - it secures my gun and reloading room door when guests and their children visit

**Spats McGee** · August 2, 2012, 08:46 AM

*Sigh* I oughta know to stay outta this, but I just can't resist . . .

1) It's a tragedy.
2) Leaving a handgun where a 3-yr-old can reach it is well into the realm of stupid.
3) If the Glock design is defective, THOUSANDS of LEAs nationwide seem to have missed the memo.

BUT . . . in reversing the grant of a motion to dismiss, the appellate court is just saying that a jury could find for the plaintiff. Nothing more. There are plenty of ways for Glock to establish some measure of fault (perhaps even 100%) on the part of the Plaintiff, but I'm not convinced that no jury could reasonably find that the design is defective.

Glenn E. Meyer · August 2, 2012, 10:20 AM

I wonder if Glock will settle on the sly. I know of another case where a cop got killed, supposedly because of the box post KB. Never went to trial.

Also, if Glock wins - they still might cough up some dough. Ruger has done that.

Botswana · August 2, 2012, 10:57 AM

This is one of the reasons I did not go for the Glock. I want a mechanical safety. Even that is not going to completely stop an incident like this.

Any weapon should have been properly secured if there was a chance someone could get access to it, especially someone who may not have the understanding of how dangerous a firearm can be.

A Glock especially so. I don't know if the officer chose to carry a Glock or it was issued, but either way he should have been aware of specific advantages/disadvantages of that weapon.

cannonfire · August 2, 2012, 11:27 AM

I think he would have a better chance of suing the LAPD for issuing him that weapon, not the manufacturer. Either way, he's an idiot on so many levels that I do not feel a bit of sympathy for him. If anything the incident happened to turn out the right way in that the kid was not shot.

You are an LEO, you know gun safety (or should) and you leave your issued weapon where a kid can get it? Where's the holster? Why was the gun in the back seat? Why was your child able to reach it from a car seat? Was the child in the car seat?

Honestly, it would not surprise me if the guy took the magazine out, didn't clear the weapon and was letting the kid play with it in the back, thinking he was using it as a toy.

On that note, do Glocks have magazine safeties?

jmortimer · August 2, 2012, 11:31 AM

Can't sue employer - it may be work related and if so he could file a workers' compensation claim.

Tuzo · August 2, 2012, 11:31 AM

Lived there for ten years and love the place. However, there is a lack of common sense in the judicial and political systems. Negligence is sometimes punished and sometimes rewarded.

Example:
More than 20 years ago two lawsuits were settled/won that should never have been.

First, robber fell through a school skylight and suffered injuries. While serving jail time for breaking and entering, he sued the school district for installing an unsafe skylight and won. I believe this happened in the Sacramento area.

Second, a San Francisco bicycle rider was struck and injured at an intersection by a right of way vehicle. This was at night and the rider was wearing dark clothes. Nishiki bicycle manufacturer was sued and settled the case for more than $1 mill based on negligence for not explicitly providing instructions stating that a bicycle needs lights for night time operation.

Too sad for both the father and son in this case. But truly, the firearm is not at fault.

August 1, 2012, 04:58 PM	#1
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Let's sue Glock! http://www.policeone.com/legal/artic...-to-sue-Glock/ So this guy has a gun in the back seat which his kid could find and then shoots him. Shouldn't he be prosecuted for allowing a kid access to the gun? If the kid shot himself, won't prosecuting Daddy be legit? Whose fault is this one? __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

August 1, 2012, 05:29 PM	#5
CWKahrFan Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 2010 Posts: 2,016	Yeah, well... We all know the usual script with these dramas... Some ambulance-chasing lawyer approaches the guy and talks him into filing the lawsuit on spec so with nothing to lose and a "maybe" to make some $ he says "OK". No big deal. __________________ What did Mrs. Bullet say to Mr. Bullet? ... "We're having a BeeBee!"... IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT!... IF THE GUN FITS, SHOOT IT! "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

August 1, 2012, 06:48 PM	#7
Isk Senior Member Join Date: June 28, 2011 Location: Alaska Posts: 206	Interesting that they went with the grip safety argument instead of the thumb safety. It isn't clear if they are making a negligence or products liability claim on this. __________________ The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh

August 1, 2012, 08:35 PM	#10
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	My fellow ambulance chasers will take a weak case like this one with big damages over a great case with small damages all day long. That is all that is going on here, trip and fall lawyer with big general and special damages case and idiot client. Would not surprise me if this was filed in Los Angeles Central Division (Downtown) Superior Court. All in all, unfortunately, this is a "great case." Last edited by jmortimer; August 1, 2012 at 09:02 PM.

August 1, 2012, 10:33 PM	#14
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	I am not familiar with the "Can't be fired by a 3 year old" safety standard. I am familiar with the "Don't leave your loaded gun where your 3 year old can find it and play with it" rule however. But if Glock can be found 10% at fault that might pay the lawyer fees.... __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

August 1, 2012, 05:07 PM	#2
Gunnut17 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2012 Location: Kitsap County, WA, USA Posts: 445	Sue glock because one of their guns was left around and someone got hurt? That's like suing a car manufacturer because one of their cars was used in a hit-and-run.

August 1, 2012, 06:15 PM	#6
RamItOne Senior Member Join Date: May 24, 2011 Posts: 990	The grip safety on my 1911 has got to be much lighter than a flocks tigger pull. I can buy the argument making an extra step to fire but not that a grip safety would be too stiff for the kid. From Glenn's link The California Second Court of Appeal said Tuesday a jury could conclude a grip safety strong enough to withstand a 3 year-old's grasp "would minimize the risk of accidental discharge without undermining performance," and in a 3-0 ruling, allowed the case to continue.

August 1, 2012, 07:12 PM	#8
sigcurious Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2011 Posts: 1,755	@Stressfire, by current standards yes, but guns already on the list get to stay on the list as long as the maker keeps paying the state even if they don't meet the most current revisions. Beyond that it was his service pistol, not a personal pistol, and even then LEO are exempt from the list in CA. It's completely his fault, I'm just glad the kid is young enough that he likely won't remember shooting his own father. It is a misdemeanor or felony to allow a child to access a firearm in California depending on the outcome of that access, but I'm guessing since he was an officer at the time the DA didn't bring charges. It was probably viewed as a tragic accident rather than gross negligence and child endangerment. We get those nifty cable locks thanks to California law(I still haven't found a use for them, maybe if I had a tiny bike), perhaps he should have utilized one, or any of the many other options to properly secure a firearm from a child.

August 1, 2012, 07:15 PM	#9
Strafer Gott Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2011 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,315	A dollar or a donut, take your pick it's about safe trigger and/or lack of externals. Can you really get whacked for being too user friendly? Tell me if I'm out of line here, is it ergonomics or safety at issue? The guy should be grateful if a judge would call it poetic justice and be done.

August 1, 2012, 09:32 PM	#11
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Glenn, I caught this a couple of weeks ago over at Calguns.net. We had a large thread on this, back in 2008, before we shut down the L&P forum: LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker It should come as no surprise that a CA appellate court decided the ex-cop could sue, based upon the lack of safety on a Glock... A gun that can't be purchased in CA, unless you are LE.

August 1, 2012, 09:36 PM	#12
teeroux Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Posts: 1,512	You know whats really worse than him sueing. That this is the character of a man that was working as a Law Enforcement Officer. I'm LE and I would be so ashamed for what I represent over an incident like that happening, much less to ever try a suit as if it wasn't my own fault.

August 1, 2012, 10:42 PM	#15
TXAZ Senior Member Join Date: September 5, 2010 Location: McMurdo Sound Texas Posts: 4,322	1) It's a tragedy 2) Who left the gun out 3) What state was this in?... Between the 9th Circuit frequently overturned decisions and the thought processes commonly found in California, is this really a surprise? California, sprechen zie Tort Reform? __________________ Cave illos in guns et backhoes

August 1, 2012, 11:36 PM	#16
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Sigcurious, thanks for that reminder! Way too many snags in CA gun laws for any one person to remember, if you don't live there.

August 2, 2012, 12:18 AM	#17
sigcurious Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2011 Posts: 1,755	I recently moved across the border to NV from CA, so they're still fresh.

August 2, 2012, 08:21 AM	#18
Jack_Bauer24 Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 147	Look at the state it happened in, need I say more. __________________ "When the people fear the govt there is tyranny, when the govt fears the people there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

August 2, 2012, 08:46 AM	#20
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	Sigh I oughta know to stay outta this, but I just can't resist . . . 1) It's a tragedy. 2) Leaving a handgun where a 3-yr-old can reach it is well into the realm of stupid. 3) If the Glock design is defective, THOUSANDS of LEAs nationwide seem to have missed the memo. BUT . . . in reversing the grant of a motion to dismiss, the appellate court is just saying that a jury could find for the plaintiff. Nothing more. There are plenty of ways for Glock to establish some measure of fault (perhaps even 100%) on the part of the Plaintiff, but I'm not convinced that no jury could reasonably find that the design is defective. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

August 2, 2012, 10:20 AM	#21
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	I wonder if Glock will settle on the sly. I know of another case where a cop got killed, supposedly because of the box post KB. Never went to trial. Also, if Glock wins - they still might cough up some dough. Ruger has done that. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

August 2, 2012, 10:57 AM	#22
Botswana Senior Member Join Date: July 4, 2012 Posts: 203	This is one of the reasons I did not go for the Glock. I want a mechanical safety. Even that is not going to completely stop an incident like this. Any weapon should have been properly secured if there was a chance someone could get access to it, especially someone who may not have the understanding of how dangerous a firearm can be. A Glock especially so. I don't know if the officer chose to carry a Glock or it was issued, but either way he should have been aware of specific advantages/disadvantages of that weapon.

August 2, 2012, 11:31 AM	#24
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	Can't sue employer - it may be work related and if so he could file a workers' compensation claim.

August 2, 2012, 11:31 AM	#25
Tuzo Senior Member Join Date: June 14, 2007 Location: Louisiana Posts: 797	Love California Lived there for ten years and love the place. However, there is a lack of common sense in the judicial and political systems. Negligence is sometimes punished and sometimes rewarded. Example: More than 20 years ago two lawsuits were settled/won that should never have been. First, robber fell through a school skylight and suffered injuries. While serving jail time for breaking and entering, he sued the school district for installing an unsafe skylight and won. I believe this happened in the Sacramento area. Second, a San Francisco bicycle rider was struck and injured at an intersection by a right of way vehicle. This was at night and the rider was wearing dark clothes. Nishiki bicycle manufacturer was sued and settled the case for more than $1 mill based on negligence for not explicitly providing instructions stating that a bicycle needs lights for night time operation. Too sad for both the father and son in this case. But truly, the firearm is not at fault. Last edited by Tuzo; August 2, 2012 at 12:24 PM.