Let's sue Glock!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tuzo]

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.

 

[Rj1972]

Originally asked by cannonfire: Why was your child able to reach it from a car seat? Was the child in the car seat?

A story in the LA times of this incident back in 06 indicates

The boy was not wearing a child restraint

If true, you've got an unsecured firearm, an unbuckled child who is also not in an approved car seat.

http://www.policeone.com/officer-sh...s-father-an-LAPD-officer-with-service-weapon/

 

[Stressfire]

Guess it was his service weapon, ok, now I'm back to "maybe LEO's should be restricted to the same 'safe' weapons that civilians are"

 

[SHR970]

Al Norris wrote: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.

A boat load of Glock models are still on the approved list for California. They are not "Unsafe Handguns" as defined in CPC 31910...it even has a safety as defined in CPC 31910(b)(1) otherwise they could not be sold in Cali.

The Plantiff appears to have violated CPC 25100(a) meeting the elements of (1), (2), and (3) a FELONY. He does not appear to meet the elements under (b) which is a misdemeanor. Because of his status of LEO it appears he was given a pass on being charged....that part is only conjecture but anyone reading up on this would likely draw a similar conclusion.
The child not being in a child seat violates CVC 27360.

Glock via their retained law firm successfully beat the plaintiff Renzulli Law Firm and even won the first appeal.

In this case I think Glock will fight again. The part I want the forms lawyers to expand upon is the fact that the appellate judge used the words "faulty design" since the gun is not "unsafe" as defined in California statue.

P.S. Glock was not the only defendant in the initial case.

There is a thread running on another forum (THR) about this.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I don't agree with the LEO's decision to sue, but I can understand it: potentially big money to pay for medical bills and make for a securer future, now that most employments are a less likely option.

What I neither understand nor agree with is the court's decision to allow this lawsuit to go ahead!!
Staggering!!

We've built ourselves a oft absurd society where a person can, for whatever happens, find someone else responsible...

 

[Luger_carbine]

I hope Glock fights it tooth and nail. I'd like to see it go forward and get slapped down at the Federal level under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

 

[drail]

This is quite simply the result of very poor weapons training, which sadly has become acceptable at almost every law enforcement training academy due to the ridiculous budget constraints they are forced to operate under. No city/county/state seems to want to spend the time or money to train these people anymore or they are so dumb they can't see why it's necessary. It's probably cheaper to just retain some lawyers for the "accidents" that take place. I am NOT cop bashing here. I am administration bashing. Why did the child find the loaded gun under the seat? Because someone who was supposedly "trained" and "responsible" left it there.

 

[MagicAnimal]

A judge who happened to be my father's brother once said, "Anybody can sue, it's collecting that's hell!"

He might have been on to somethin' there...

 

[Botswana]

This is quite simply the result of very poor weapons training

That's hardly an excuse though. Basic firearms safety is actually pretty simple. The discipline is what is difficult. If you're going to make a living where carrying a firearm is practically a 24/7 activity, there has to be some commitment to acting in safe a manner as possible.

I'm not saying police academies shouldn't hammer these lessons home. However, if the average citizen can pick up a gun and not shoot themselves in the foot with it a police officer should be able to master the discipline it takes to minimize the chances of an accidental shooting.

In the story about this officer, his actions weren't just a lack of following standard firearms safety but went right into negligence.

 

[Luger_carbine]

The main point here, IMO, is that this lawsuit could end up having the effect of making a whole class of handguns unavailable to California shooters because they've been made too risky from a liability standpoint, for manufacturers to sell them in California.

I'm not even sure the liability stops there. Someone purchases a Walther PPS in some other state but that gun is used to injure someone in California... Walther is exposed to the same kind of lawsuit. This same type of lawsuit could be applied to any DA revolver, and any number of guns.

The country needed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precisely because of the stupidity that these three judges displayed by allowing the suit to go forward.

The gun functioned within it's design parameters. It did not malfunction. Furthermore, the injury to the plaintiff came about as the result of a crime (or several), - isn't it child endangerment or something?

It makes as much sense as suing the car manufacturer because they didn't make their seats in such a way that 3 year olds couldn't shoot through them.

 

[jmortimer]

A judge who happened to be my father's brother once said, "Anybody can sue, it's collecting that's hell!"

Glock is a deep-pocket so this is pure gold to a slip and fall attorney. "Great" case if you are an attorney.

 

[vranasaurus]

Since allowing a three year old to acces a gun violates a california statute can't glock make a claim under the PLCAA?

The PLCAA prohibits suits against manufacturers where the injury is the result of unlawful misuse?

The term “unlawful misuse” means conduct that violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation as it relates to the use of a qualified product.

Probably why the plaintiffs are arguing that glocks design was defective.

 

[TheSkySoldier]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought there was a law passed not too long ago that made gun manufacturers "immune" to liability lawsuits for firearms used in crimes/personal injuries, except for in the event that the weapon malfunctions (i.e., barrel explodes, etc.)

 

[Luger_carbine]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought there was a law passed not too long ago that made gun manufacturers "immune" to liability lawsuits for firearms used in crimes/personal injuries, except for in the event that the weapon malfunctions (i.e., barrel explodes, etc.)

Yes, it is the PLCAA, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

I'm not sure what these fuzzy-thinking individuals who call themselves judges are thinking but they seem oblivious to the PLCAA. It's up to Glock to call upon the PLCAA as the basis to dismiss the suit.

 

[SHR970]

Since the lawyers haven't chimed in yet and others have brought up the PLCAA I'm going to insert the "why I believe" the justices ruled that way.

Under 15 USC 7902 (a) the plaintiff would normally have no case. However, they can have a case IF they can prove a defect in design. 15 USC 7903 (5) (A) (v) Applicable Code . However, that same section can be used against the plaintiff because the use of the gun was the result of a criminal act.

I'm no lawyer but I see the eye of the needle that the justices threaded assuming that they took 15 USC 7901-7903 into account.

 

[vranasaurus]

It may also be that Glock failed to rase the defense and thereby waived it.

To me this is an issue of causation. Was the design of the Glock the cause of the incident or was the failure to keep a gun away from a 3 year old the cause?

A reasonably prudent person would take steps to prevent a 3 year old from having access to a gun. Holding a manufacturer liable for the unreasonable acts of the claimant just strikes me as unjust. By allowing the suit to proceed the court has said basically "it's ok to leave a gun where a 3 year old can access it".

One purpose of tort law is to make a person whole from damage caused by the negligent or intentional acts of another. We don't generally allow someone to recover damages from another where the damage was caused by the claimants negligence.

If what I just googled is correct California is a pure comparative negligence state. It would be interesting to see how a jury would apportion fault in this case. Any California injury lawyers care to chime in?

Does anyone know what the rule on negligence per se is in California? It seems to me that since the father might have violated the statute on preventing child access to firearms this would be clear cut negligence on his part.