LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker


PDA






CountGlockula
July 10, 2008, 02:27 PM
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

No CA bashing PLEASE.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_2089579.php

Thursday, July 10, 2008
LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker
Lawsuit alleges gun has inadequate safety provisions.
By ERIC NEFF
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Comments 73| Recommend 2

A retired Los Angeles police officer paralyzed when his 3-year-old son fired his father's handgun while riding in the family pickup in Anaheim two years ago filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the gun's manufacturer.

Enrique Chavez, 37, of Anaheim, was off-duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. His son got a hold of his father's .45-caliber weapon while sitting in the back seat and shot him in the back, according to police reports. The son was not restrained in a safety seat.

The lawsuit alleges that Glock Inc.'s gun was dangerous because its safety device was "nonexistent or ineffective" at preventing an accidental shot.

Chavez, a 10-year veteran of the LAPD, is also suing the manufacturer of the gun holster and the retail stores that sold him the gun and holster. He bought the gun at the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club and purchased a holster made by Uncle Mike's and Bushnell Outdoor Products from Turner's Outdoorsman.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges. The lawsuit alleges product liability, breach of warranty and loss of consortium and seeks general, special and punitive damages and attorney fees.

A Glock spokesperson declined to comment, saying that the company has not yet seen or heard of the complaint.

Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.

If you enjoyed reading about "LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
30 cal slob
July 10, 2008, 02:29 PM
why isn't the officer being charged with child endangerment on two counts - unrestrained in a moving vehicle and leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a young child?

:scrutiny:

ilbob
July 10, 2008, 02:30 PM
The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges.

5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in discharges. Thats what it is supposed to do.

TCB in TN
July 10, 2008, 02:31 PM
How was it an accidental shot? Someone pulled the trigger!:uhoh:

LiquidTension
July 10, 2008, 02:31 PM
Ah yes, blame everyone but the person at fault. Standard procedure these days.

ilbob
July 10, 2008, 02:31 PM
why isn't the officer being charged with child endangerment on two counts - unrestrained in a moving vehicle and leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a young child?
Who wants to go after a paralyzed guy?

blkbrd666
July 10, 2008, 02:34 PM
I see a moron who's trying to blame someone else for his own mistakes...typical. He really should have taught the kid how to doubletap. Maybe when he gets done with the gun manufacturer, he can sue the automobile manufacturer for not installing bulletproof seats...or maybe his mom for raising such an idiot.

ilbob
July 10, 2008, 02:37 PM
I see a moron who's trying to blame someone else for his own mistakes...typical. He really should have taught the kid how to doubletap. Maybe when he gets done with the gun manufacturer, he can sue the automobile manufacturer for not installing bulletproof seats...or maybe his mom for raising such an idiot.No doubt his lawyer is telling him this is a way to potentially get set for life. A paralyzed guy does not have as many options as the rest of us, and even such a patently silly lawsuit like this has some chance of success.

buzz_knox
July 10, 2008, 02:37 PM
Did the officer leave the weapon in the backseat or did the 3 year old somehow get the weapon out of the holster without the officer bothering to notice?

In any event, Glock's lawyers probably flinched when hearing this case was on its way, then relaxed when they saw the facts.

Mil-Spec45
July 10, 2008, 02:44 PM
Why doesn't he sue Hornaday or Federal for making such dangerous paralysis-inducing bullets?

DoubleTapDrew
July 10, 2008, 02:44 PM
So the gun functioned exactly as it's supposed to, and the defective part was the guy allowing his kid access to the gun. It's idiots like this that force manufacturers to incorporate features that endanger your safety when you actually need to use the gun.
Glock: Stop selling to the LAPD. That should make him popular with the officers that aren't mentally deficient.

rodngun
July 10, 2008, 02:49 PM
Sounds kinda like a hot cup of coffee to me...what a MORON.

GRB
July 10, 2008, 02:52 PM
This lawsuit, and the cop filing it, are in my opinion unbelievable in the scope of their arrogance. It is absolutely amazing that the courts would even entertain a suit like this, but hey, that's America.

jason10mm
July 10, 2008, 02:54 PM
This is just a money soak. Hit up all the parties and hope for a settlement. The retail stores can't afford to fight it and the guys lawyer knows a guy in a wheelchair on the stand makes for good PR. They are hoping Glock coughs up a few hundred grand.

I will drive to Smyrna personally to buy a Glock if this goes to trial. Actually, can I do that anyway? Do they have a FFL on site? I would love to get a G30 straight from the womb...:P

Reddbecca
July 10, 2008, 02:59 PM
It'll be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out, especially since gun manufacturers are shielded from frivolous lawsuits just like this.

Tyris
July 10, 2008, 02:59 PM
Too bad he did not take it in the back of the skull. It would save glock some money.

He should take some personal responsibility, but that is astonishingly rare in California.

-T

Justin
July 10, 2008, 03:09 PM
Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.

Evidently he was already paralyzed from the neck up.

Eyesac
July 10, 2008, 03:23 PM
The only reason this is even allowed is because is because we don't have common sense laws about lawsuits like this. Looser should have to pay all legal bills of the winner.

usmarine0352_2005
July 10, 2008, 03:25 PM
why isn't the officer being charged with child endangerment on two counts - unrestrained in a moving vehicle and leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a young child?


Exactly.



And can't you not win legal damages if what you did was in commission of a crime?
Since he was committing the act of child endangerment and unrestrained child in a motor vehicle, shouldn't he not be allowed to profit by law?


Similar to you rob a bank at gun point, and fall and break your leg in the bank vault, you can't sue the bank for the broken leg, because you were in comission of a crime.



And, his son pulled the trigger, it went off, that's what it's supposed to do.

When he bought the gun, he knew that there wasn't any safety on it (besides the Glock's Mickey Mouse trigger safety).


Not like his son dropped it on the ground and it fired.


.

ilbob
July 10, 2008, 03:27 PM
Similar to you rob a bank at gun point, and fall and break your leg in the bank vault, you can't sue the bank for the broken leg, because you were in comission of a crime.criminals have successfully sued homeowners when they have hurt themselves while engaged in burglarizing a home.

GEM
July 10, 2008, 03:35 PM
Probably looking for the hush-hush out of court bucks.

MakAttak
July 10, 2008, 03:39 PM
A paralyzed guy does not have as many options as the rest of us, and even such a patently silly lawsuit like this has some chance of success.

You say that as though patently silly lawsuits don't USUALLY have a chance of success in our country.

I'm sorry- are you a new to the legal system? We reward stupidity regularly.

General Geoff
July 10, 2008, 03:40 PM
I don't think Glock will play the settlement game, they have too much to lose on their reputation. Frankly, it couldn't be easier for them to win this case.

"The gun is designed so that when the trigger is pulled, the gun discharges. Our firearm performed precisely as designed, and precisely as advertised. Defense motions for dismissal."

MakAttak
July 10, 2008, 03:41 PM
On a pessimistic note, I predict the moron will win.

Anyone care to make a bet on this?

General Geoff
July 10, 2008, 03:47 PM
I'd take that bet, but I'm not a betting man.


I think that if Glock decides to go to court, the ruling will turn out very similarly to the Black Talon case.

usmarine0352_2005
July 10, 2008, 03:49 PM
"The gun is designed so that when the trigger is pulled, the gun discharges. Our firearm performed precisely as designed, and precisely as advertised. Defense motions for dismissal."


This is exactly what the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed for.


.

xds&gsps
July 10, 2008, 03:56 PM
Why doesn't he sue Hornaday or Federal for making such dangerous paralysis-inducing bullets?

Don't give him any ideas.

MarcusWendt
July 10, 2008, 03:57 PM
Glock will settle just like this officer's attorney knows they will. Two letters will cause Glock to settle X D.

A decent attorney will point to numerous gun manufacturers who have both trigger and grip safeties or external safeties like a lever. The XD looks so much like a Glock they would stand them side by side and point out the safeties that the XD has that the Glock doesn't. This is California kids, it's a Lock against Glock and the attorney knows it.

romma
July 10, 2008, 03:59 PM
IMO The paraplegic needs to be put in jail just like anyone else that breaks the law.

If I were Glocks' Attorney, I would be all would be all over the DA to get him charged.

Sounds to me like the cop is not only a paraplegic, but a parasite as well...

lysander
July 10, 2008, 03:59 PM
On a pessimistic note, I predict the moron will win.

Anyone care to make a bet on this?

Define win and I will consider taking you up on it.

usmarine0352_2005
July 10, 2008, 04:00 PM
Glock will settle just like this officer's attorney knows they will. Two letters will cause Glock to settle X D.

A decent attorney will point to numerous gun manufacturers who have both trigger and grip safeties or external safeties like a lever. The XD looks so much like a Glock they would stand them side by side and point out the safeties that the XD has that the Glock doesn't. This is California kids, it's a Lock against Glock and the attorney knows it.


Not so sure about that.

This is exactly what the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed for.


If the gun works as functioned, you are protected from frivolous lawsuits such as this one.

.

lysander
July 10, 2008, 04:03 PM
criminals have successfully sued homeowners when they have hurt themselves while engaged in burglarizing a home.

Do you have a citation supporting the "successful" part?

FieroCDSP
July 10, 2008, 04:04 PM
You can't hand a manufacturer an easier case to win. The only hitch I can see is the all-powerful, all knowing, 9th circuit court jesters...er judges. Only in ********** would this guy have a prayer of winning.

MarcusWendt
July 10, 2008, 04:09 PM
Only in ********** would this guy have a prayer of winning.

Emmm hmmmmm. What state was Mac Donald's coffee spilling lady from? New Mexico?

camslam
July 10, 2008, 04:09 PM
:barf:

It is stories like this involving idiots like this that make me shudder for the future of our country.

mrreynolds
July 10, 2008, 04:17 PM
Why doesn't he sue the LAPD for allowing him to pass the psychological exam & inadequately training him to safely maintaining his firearm

Phil DeGraves
July 10, 2008, 04:23 PM
At least the Wal-Mart lady didn't sue the gun manufacturer...

strat81
July 10, 2008, 04:25 PM
The only person I feel bad for is the son who will grow up knowing he pulled the trigger. He isn't responsible (as he is three), but that is still a terrible burden to bear.

I hope the judge throws this out and charges the degenerate father.

Picard
July 10, 2008, 04:25 PM
Wow, so this guy buys a gun without a safety and the cheapest holster he can get and complains that his son was able to use it?

Wow, the nerve some people have. I guess that he hasn't learned that suing won't give him control of his legs back.

People make mistakes and reality really is unfortunate in the way that it makes people pay for them. Can't change the laws of nature with a lawsuit...

jagugator
July 10, 2008, 04:29 PM
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article11331.html

I searched frivolous lawsuits and this came up. I am sure there are many more.

In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.

glockman19
July 10, 2008, 04:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His child was not restrained, he had no control over his weapon.

Who's to blame? Glock, Uncle Mikes, LAPRAC, Turners?

Sounds like his own irresponsibility got him into trouble.

romma
July 10, 2008, 04:45 PM
Do you have a citation supporting the "successful" part?

http://www.blogd.com/wp/index.php/archives/3206


Bizarro-Overlawyered is upset about the fact that a legislator, over twenty years ago, mentioned a lawsuit involving “a burglar [that] fell through a skylight and injured himself only to recover thousands of dollars from the owner of the skylight,” and points to this MS Word account of the case of Bodine v. Enterprise High School to debunk the tale. Those dastardly reformers, misrepresenting the facts once again! (Of course, there are several thousand posts on Overlawyered over the last seven years, and not a one before today mentions this case, so it’s hardly central to the reform movement. It doesn’t appear on the ATRA website, either. But why split hairs when there’s a chance to demonize reformers?)

Except if one actually goes to the document, buried within a lot of rhetoric criticizing reformers for mentioning the Bodine lawsuit, we learn: Ricky Bodine was a 19-year-old high-school graduate who, with three other friends (one of whom had a criminal record), decided the night of March 1, 1982, to steal a floodlight from the roof of the Enterprise High School gymnasium. Ricky climbed the roof, removed the floodlight, lowered it to the ground to his friends, and, as he was walking across the roof (perhaps to steal a second floodlight), he fell through the skylight. Bodine suffered terrible injuries to be sure, though one questions the relevance: if the school is legally responsible for burglars’ safety, it doesn’t matter whether Bodine stubbed a toe or, as actually happened, became a spastic quadriplegic. But I fail to see what it is that reformers are supposedly misrepresenting. A burglar fell through a skylight, and sued the owner of the skylight for his injuries. Bodine sued for $8 million (in 1984 dollars, about $16 million today) and settled for the nuisance sum of $260,000 plus $1200/month for life, about the equivalent of a million dollars in conservatively-estimated 2006 present value.

In other words, a burglar fell through a skylight, and blamed the skylight’s owners for his injuries; because the law permits such suits, and because the law does not compensate defendants for successful defenses, Bodine had the ability to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers for injuries suffered in the course of his own criminal behavior. Bodine’s only hope of recovery is the law’s rejection of proximate cause as prerequisite to liability. Assemblyman Alister McAlister, the Democratic legislator who used the story to push for reform, described the facts correctly. McAllister didn’t mention that Bodine was 19, but so what? He didn’t mention that Bodine was 6′1″ and a waiter, either, and all three facts are irrelevant. Lilliedoll accuses McAlister of falsely claiming that the legal theory was “failure to warn,” but that’s hardly an inaccurate description of a duty-to-trespassers theory: the alleged duty could have been fulfilled by posting visible warnings to trespassers of the dangers of traversing the roof.

230RN
July 10, 2008, 04:45 PM
He didn't sue Ford? Amazing.

Obviously, the Ford Ranger's seats are inadequately designed.

Tyris
July 10, 2008, 05:01 PM
null

jagugator
July 10, 2008, 05:07 PM
Assemblyman Alister McAlister

That cracks me up for some reason. :p

anarchris
July 10, 2008, 05:09 PM
do not let him near your Glock!

wally
July 10, 2008, 05:15 PM
Why hasn't he bee prosecuted for violating the Youth Handgun Safety Act? -- you the one Federal Law forces your dealer to stick in the box along with the trigger lock.

--wally.

Picard
July 10, 2008, 05:18 PM
Assemblyman Alister McAlister

LOL He must have had fun in school during roll call.

MGshaggy
July 10, 2008, 05:23 PM
Lemme get this right...

LAPD officer, ostensibly familiar with how his weapon works, leaves it loaded in the back of his car for his unrestrained kid to play with like it was beanie-baby? Then he wants to blame Glock when his kid nominates him for a Darwin Award?

When did the LAPD start accepting recruits off the short bus?

e3mrk
July 10, 2008, 05:43 PM
I think Glock should pursue the case for twenty years and drive the Guy into Bankruptcy for being so stupid as to get into that situation anyway and then try and sue them.

Robert Hairless
July 10, 2008, 05:55 PM
His son got a hold of his father's .45-caliber weapon while sitting in the back seat and shot him in the back, according to police reports.

Don't you hate it when that happens?

texas bulldog
July 10, 2008, 06:00 PM
This is exactly what the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed for.

and let's hope it works as intended here. the last thing we need is for this guy to win (either by jury or settlement) and encourage this sort of thing. the compete negligence on his part is unfathomable, especially on the part of someone whose job it is to handle firearms regularly.

rocinante
July 10, 2008, 06:06 PM
The only reason this is even allowed is because is because we don't have common sense laws about lawsuits like this.

Actually I thought there was something passed by congress to protect gun makers from this B.S.

T-Ray
July 10, 2008, 06:09 PM
Who wants to go after a paralyzed guy?

I agree that they would look like "butt holes," but haven't they made artificial spines?

MarcusWendt
July 10, 2008, 06:15 PM
LAPD officer, ostensibly familiar with how his weapon works, leaves it loaded in the back of his car for his unrestrained kid to play with like it was beanie-baby? Then he wants to blame Glock when his kid nominates him for a Darwin Award?

As I recall the weapon was on him and holstered. His son got it from the holster by reaching between the seats and that's when he was shot.

CountGlockula
July 10, 2008, 06:29 PM
Son figured how to unarm a cop.

owlhoot
July 10, 2008, 06:30 PM
The officer knew the Glock system. If he has a brain, he understood that all that is required to fire the gun was 5.5 lbs of pressure on the trigger. I'm guessing that he purchased a holster that leaves the trigger exposed. He made every mistake that an officer and a father could have made in the circumstance.
It is sad that Murphy was in the truck, but the officer was responsible. Nevertheless, trying the case in California would be risky.

CWL
July 10, 2008, 06:35 PM
While we all recognize the absurdity of the lawsuits, I think that everyone of us would do the same thing in his situation. If you instantly become paralyzed from the waist down and you now have to worry about lifelong medical costs, inability to work, and still having to take care of your family, you would grasp at all straws dangled out to you by a law firm.

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain if you get paid insurance settlement $$$.

Unfortunate situation, I hope he loses, but I can sympathize with him for the position he is in.

DRZinn
July 10, 2008, 06:57 PM
I think that everyone of us would do the same thing in his situationNope, sorry.

Double Naught Spy
July 10, 2008, 07:01 PM
Why do you sue somebody for your own incompetence? Oh yeah, for the money and to make it seem that you weren't at fault.

slabuda
July 10, 2008, 07:14 PM
Hate to say but from what we hear on here and other places this guy will probably win being in Cali...

Pretty much sounds like a dumb ass for not keeping the kid in a child seat and hand gun well away, especially after being a 10 yr vet of police work. He should have seen WAY to many accidents with children not restrained to allow his own child to be not in a safety seat and a gun accessible to him?!?!?!?!

As stated why was he not charged with child endangerment for not properly restraining his kid and having a gun he could access? If it was a regular civilian would he have been charged!?!?!?!?!

And yea Cali "Only cops are trained and qualified enough to have firearms and our laws reflect that"--my paraphrased quote--

cpttango30
July 10, 2008, 07:47 PM
This might not be high road but the stupid SOB got what he deserved.

If this goes to trial I am buying a glock. I better start looking at them now so I can pick mine out.

If they pay out of court I will shun glock and buy more Smith & Wesson.

If I was the higher up of glock I would have been on the phone to LAPD saying that if this lawsuit does not disappear so will all your weapons and we will put the word out not to sell to you. It would not be hard to do a recall on all the sidearms the LAPD uses then you just bring them back to the factory and never let them back out.....

LAPD new sire arms super soakers. LOL that would be good.

CountGlockula
July 10, 2008, 07:51 PM
While we all recognize the absurdity of the lawsuits, I think that everyone of us would do the same thing in his situation. If you instantly become paralyzed from the waist down and you now have to worry about lifelong medical costs, inability to work, and still having to take care of your family, you would grasp at all straws dangled out to you by a law firm.

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain if you get paid insurance settlement $$$.

Unfortunate situation, I hope he loses, but I can sympathize with him for the position he is in.


Good point.

slabuda-Hate to say but from what we hear on here and other places this guy will probably win being in Cali...

I don't think so. Stop bashing on CA.

Travis McGee
July 10, 2008, 07:52 PM
Stupid is as stupid does.

La Pistoletta
July 10, 2008, 07:58 PM
Glock: fight this thing into the ground. Don't settle and don't give up even if it costs money. There's only gonna be more of this if you prove them right by making frivolous litigation profitable.

Get him to pay all the legal expenses.

You do not negotiate with terrorists.

riverdog
July 10, 2008, 08:05 PM
When I first read this I chuckled a bit because as we all know the Glock 21, 30, 36, 37, 38 and 39 are all on California's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/) which means it "has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice".

I guess CA needs to add an "unrestrained-3yo-in-the-backseat-with-access-to-the-gun" test. How are they going to set that up?

Dumptruck
July 10, 2008, 08:11 PM
I just got so irritated by this story that I threw up in my mouth. I am suing the retired police officer for physical and emotional damages.

outerlimit
July 10, 2008, 08:20 PM
That article reads like something from The Onion.

AndyC
July 10, 2008, 08:32 PM
Is a 5.5 lb trigger standard on a Glock standard, or is this a modified weight?

Edit: Never mind - just went to glock.com to check and it seems that it's normal. I was sort of hoping the guy had put in replacement components.

Heartless_Conservative
July 10, 2008, 08:34 PM
Maybe now Glock will finally follow Barret (did I spell that right?) in regards to selling to and servicing weapons for Cali agencies (personally, I would've drawn the line at microstamping).

usmarine0352_2005
July 10, 2008, 08:39 PM
Actually I thought there was something passed by congress to protect gun makers from this B.S.

Yes.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President Bush and became Public Law 108-73.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products.

However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.


I don't see letting your child get your pistol and shooting you in the not being covered by that.

Plus, maybe he should be charged with a crime instead.

1.) Child Endangerment

2.) Driving without a child properly restrained.

.

DaleA
July 10, 2008, 08:51 PM
Some years back Minnesota legislators looked into mandating a minimum trigger pull of 10 pounds. It did NOT pass into law but it just goes to show there is no limit to the nonsense some people exhibit about fire arms.

P.S. I think the Minnesota 10 lb trigger pull only was to apply to handguns but I'm not certain about that.

BReilley
July 10, 2008, 09:01 PM
Who wants to go after a paralyzed guy?

The whole insult-to-injury thing doesn't seem to apply to dippy parents who bake their children in cars. They usually go to jail, in addition to losing their child.

It is stories like this involving idiots like this that make me shudder for the future of our country.

Don't worry about the future... fret for today. :(

5.5lbs is standard for a Glock. My G19's case says "5.5LB" on the label.

I will not live in California because of this type of thing. It's not "bashing", it's the honest truth... too much B.S. walks.

Funderb
July 10, 2008, 09:04 PM
oh, law, love at first sight,
how do I get by with any money,
never having sued a soul
in this litigious society of ours.

lysander
July 10, 2008, 09:18 PM
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-artic...icle11331.html

I searched frivolous lawsuits and this came up. I am sure there are many more.


Yes...that case happened. It happened in Illinois in 1997. Yes the shopkeeper was found liable by a civil jury. Why? Because the by law in Illinois you aren't allowed to boobytrap property with deadly force to protect it. Electricity is deadly. The jury rendered a fair decision based on the evidence they heard. It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit.

In fact, that suit isn't much different than the suit a CCW should expect to face if they MISAPPLY deadly force based upon the law of their jurisdiction.

As so many of you who often pipe up in defense of cracking down on illegal immigrants and other lawbreakers are fond of pointing out...we are a country of laws. We don't allow vigilantism...and planting deadly booby traps is a form of vigilantism. Just because the State's Attorney didn't file criminal charges against the shopkeeper, doesn't mean the shopkeeper was right in using a deadly booby trap to protect his property.

....booby traps are indiscriminate and a no-no.

GlowinPontiac
July 10, 2008, 09:22 PM
So who decided not to prosecute this guy for not having the child properly restrained in the car? Just because he got paralyzed does not mean he is innocent in this whole situation. The DA who did not press charges against this man should be put out of a job and the man who was shot should be charged with child endagerment and possibly some firearms charges for allowing the child such easy access to a loaded firearm. How do you not notice a child pulling your pistol out of its holster that is attached to you?

Glock , the gunstore and the shop which sold him the holster should countersue to recoup the possible lost profits they will suffer due to this frivolous case.

Just because the State's Attorney didn't file criminal charges against the shopkeeper, doesn't mean the shopkeeper was right in using a deadly booby trap to protect his property.

As long as you post a sign informing people of the possible danger it should be legal.
what if you have a wrought iron fence with pointy bars? does this mean that if somebody tries to climb over it to trespass on your property and gets impaled that he can sue you for having an effective fence? Isn't barbed wire technically a booby trap? that stuff is everywhere on top of millions of feet of chain link fence surrounding private property and you never hear about anyone suing when they get sliced up while scaling the fence.

as long as the booby trap is inside a privately owned building and signs are posted warning of the danger they should be legal. booby traps outside should be illegal just because they could injure or kill a child who came into your yard to retrieve a lost ball or a runaway pet.

justin 561
July 10, 2008, 09:25 PM
It's like shutting your fingers in your car door and then taking the car maker to court.

Mil-Spec45
July 10, 2008, 09:31 PM
I guess it doesn't matter that there's a big, ugly hole in the seat...it's not like the dad will be driving anytime soon. :evil:

lysander
July 10, 2008, 09:33 PM
Bizarro-Overlawyered is upset about the fact that a legislator, over twenty years ago, mentioned a lawsuit involving “a burglar [that] fell through a skylight and injured himself only to recover thousands of dollars from the owner of the skylight,” and points to this MS Word account of the case of Bodine v. Enterprise High School to debunk the tale....

This case happened also, though as is usually the case on the various "tort reform" blogs, it only tells part of the story. The Bodine case never went to a jury because the insurer and plaintiff agreed to a settlement.

The case was complicated for both sides. The kid who fell through the skylight was certainly breaking the law...but seeing as how the school had seen another person fall through the same skylight and die a year prior (because the skylight was painted over) and had failed to correct the dangerous condition, their insurer wanted to get out of the case.

In both Bodine and the boobytrap case the law did roughly what it was supposed to do...

Everybody wants tort reform till they get torted...only then do they realize that they have been working against their own individual rights.

I am not commenting on the validity of this Glock lawsuit...because...as many of you who like to defend the police in good shoot/bad shoot threads are fond of saying...this story doesn't provide enough facts to support a conclusion one way or the other.

I will comment on the sheer disregard for suffering expressed by some in this thread by saying...it ain't very high road to say this guy got what was coming to him.

lysander
July 10, 2008, 09:37 PM
As long as you post a sign informing people of the possible danger it should be legal.

Well...at the time this case happened, the law of Illinois said that it wasn't.

Isn't barbed wire technically a booby trap? I suppose it could be...though, absent additional circumstances, it wouldn't likely be seen as a deadly one. That is a important distinction.

Mil-Spec45
July 10, 2008, 09:42 PM
What do you call a guy who is shot by his son in the back and paralyzed from the waist down, who falls into a fire?

Bernie :evil:

Bill2e
July 10, 2008, 09:44 PM
WE need a losewr pays legal system. The sad part is for Glock it will be cheaper to settle.

Acera
July 10, 2008, 09:54 PM
From the poll on the site,

Who's responsible?
Who's responsible for the accidental shooting that left an LAPD officer paralyzed?
The gun manufacturer.
1%
The police officer.
90%
Gun laws.
0%
No one. It was an accident.
9%

Total Votes: 1420

Stevie-Ray
July 10, 2008, 10:01 PM
even such a patently silly lawsuit like this has some chance of success.That's absolutely right. I've always been told that the only thing a jury sees and hears is somebody that will never walk again. Generally, it's from the people that have served on said juries. With the info available now, I swear to you I would hang this one, if I were chosen for it and the trial was going his way.:fire: Probably a lot easier for me, being the husband of a handicapped woman, who did not become handicapped due to her own stupidity. Any sympathy I could ever feel for this idiot has been wiped clean.

I agree, prosecute.

Kentucky Kernel
July 10, 2008, 10:04 PM
This type of action almost put Cessna out of the general aircraft business. I am sorry this guy is paralyzed, but such suits hurt us all. He ought to put his effort into supporting stem cell research.

Funderb
July 10, 2008, 10:12 PM
What do you call a guy who is shot by his son in the back and paralyzed from the waist down, who falls into a fire?



I was thinking Screamy McFlailyhands. to each their own. :evil:

orionengnr
July 10, 2008, 10:39 PM
Just curious, but how does one retire from the LAPD at age 37 with only ten years of service?

Or did I (as I've frequently suspected) just choose my career path poorly? :rolleyes:

CypherNinja
July 10, 2008, 10:47 PM
Emmm hmmmmm. What state was Mac Donald's coffee spilling lady from? New Mexico?

That was actually a good suit in my book.

http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

fal 4 me
July 10, 2008, 10:49 PM
Just curious, but how does one retire from the LAPD at age 37 with only ten years of service?


Get shot and paralyzed by your kid, at least in this case. Can't perform as an officer anymore, you retire. A "retired police officer" is simply an officer that isn't on the police force anymore, not necessarily retired completely.

Mil-Spec45
July 10, 2008, 11:17 PM
I'm wondering if the kid is ok. I mean on top of having to live with guilt the rest if his life, my question is what happened to the vehicle they were driving in? Was he able to put it in park, was he able to put weight on the brake, or did it crash into something?? Without being restrained, the son could have just as well been hurt if so.

Aguila Blanca
July 10, 2008, 11:39 PM
No doubt his lawyer is telling him this is a way to potentially get set for life. A paralyzed guy does not have as many options as the rest of us, and even such a patently silly lawsuit like this has some chance of success.
Unfortunately, you are correct.

And that's a very sad commentary on the state of this country today ...

gtmerkley
July 11, 2008, 12:36 AM
bs pure bs

Wopasaurus
July 11, 2008, 01:19 AM
I guess his son wasn't the only one professional enough...

Richbaker
July 11, 2008, 01:27 AM
"At least the Wal-Mart lady didn't sue the gun manufacturer..."

Yet!

WoofersInc
July 11, 2008, 01:33 AM
Doesn't California have a law on the books that it is a crime to leave a handgun where a child may access it? That same law also says the gun owner is responsible for any damage done by the child that obtained the firearm.
Sorry, but I do not have one bit of sympathy for this guy. It is his stupidity that got him here and he should have to deal with the results.

TexasSkyhawk
July 11, 2008, 01:35 AM
Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.

Sounds more like this numbnuts was born paralyzed from the neck up.

And how the hell do you retire from a legitimate police department at age 37? Even in the feds, we had to wait until we hit 55.

Jeff

Yosemite**Sam
July 11, 2008, 03:49 AM
Doesn't California have a law on the books that it is a crime to leave a handgun where a child may access it? That same law also says the gun owner is responsible for any damage done by the child that obtained the firearm.


Yes it's 12035 PC


Just curious, but how does one retire from the LAPD at age 37 with only ten years of service?


I doubt he is getting a retirement pension from LAPD. More likely he's now retired and on state disability.

32winspl
July 11, 2008, 09:19 AM
"GLOCK; so simple a child can use it!"

kludge
July 11, 2008, 09:24 AM
Guns are designed to fire a bullet when the trigger is pulled, i.e. the gun was not defective.

The cop was negligent for leaving a loaded gun unattended where a child could get a hold of it and use it.

Pay2Play
July 11, 2008, 09:27 AM
Just when you think the last frivolous lawsuit you heard about was the dumbest here comes this guy. I absolutely hope that this guy doesn't win this case. I feel bad about what happen to him, but it all could have been prevented if he was just a tad bit smarter about his families safety around a firearm.

willbrink
July 11, 2008, 10:11 AM
"A Glock spokesperson declined to comment,"

Because he could not stop laughing? :rolleyes:

entropy
July 11, 2008, 11:07 AM
I think that everyone of us would do the same thing in his situation.

No. I didn't (and won't) sue the gunshop I work at when a ricochet came back and hit me in the forehead when test firing a Marlin .30-30 I'd just finished working on. No, I'm not going to sue Marlin, either. It was my own dang fault, and, as it happened at work, medical was covered under workman's comp.

Thank goodness I have a thick skull! ;)

willbrink
July 11, 2008, 11:17 AM
"I think that everyone of us would do the same thing in his situation."

Is that a joke?:uhoh:

buzz_knox
July 11, 2008, 11:56 AM
I think that everyone of us would do the same thing in his situation.

I'd never sue someone for damages resulting from my own negligence.

HKUSP45C
July 11, 2008, 12:35 PM
That was actually a good suit in my book.

http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

This bears repeating, again and again.

The "McDonalds Lady, coffee spiller" was a perfectly reasonable lawsuit that actually paid a lot less than the jury initially awarded, more's the pity. McDonalds should have hung for the injury that poor woman suffered. They had already been aprised of the danger of their practices and chose to continue endangering the public even after having made several out of court pay offs to other injured parties.

If you've never read the details of the suit and are only going on the information you remeber from the news or have heard from other people who have never read the details you owe it to your sense of intellectual honesty to do so.

Particularly before disparaging the woman or her legal standing and damages.


This case, at first blush, looks very hard to defend, on the other hand.

lysander
July 11, 2008, 12:46 PM
I'd never sue someone for damages resulting from my own negligence.

You do not know, from the information present in the article if this resulted from the plaintiff's own negligence. You can infer...but you don't know.

Why is everyone so hostile to people having their day in court?

Lonestar49
July 11, 2008, 01:04 PM
...

Why he is not suing the people who made, and sold him, a defective child restraint car seat for his child..? As the child must have un-strapped himself to make his way to his Dad's defective (j/k) gun.. right..?

Wait, maybe, there is some truth left in the world :rolleyes:

Or maybe there wasn't even a child-restraint seat in the car, as mandated by Law for the child to be in..

As mentioned, so many times before, BS, frivolous lawsuits, just when you thought you had heard the worst.. and..

Along comes a LEO who is above the law and didn't read the gun-owners manual nor the vehicle code law pertaining to driving with a child .


Ls

MakAttak
July 11, 2008, 01:20 PM
Why is everyone so hostile to people having their day in court?

I'm not. I'm hostile to a court system that encourages and rewards frivolous and pernicious lawsuits that cause the defendant to pay thousands of dollars EVEN IF HE WINS.

When someone can use the legal system to destroy another person for no other reason than he was angered by the defendant (see the infamous "Million dollar pants" lawsuit from Washington D.C.) which then leads to most cases, even frivilous ones such as this, being settled out of court to the benefit of the plantiff, THERE IS NO JUSTICE.

Of course our lawyers love this system: no matter what happens, they win because there are more lawsuits and at least two lawyers get paid in every one.

cpttango30
July 11, 2008, 01:47 PM
No doubt his lawyer is telling him this is a way to potentially get set for life. A paralyzed guy does not have as many options as the rest of us, and even such a patently silly lawsuit like this has some chance of success.

What do you stinking mean there are not many options for paraplegic out there. Huh could have fooled me as I seen 4 working at walmart. Shoot at my walmart we have a guy with no legs and one deformed arm and a stub He can wheel himself around walmart faster than you can walk in there. He always has a smile and is always friendly to everyone.

I know a truck driver that is a paraplegic. His company makes sure he has loads that he can handle and his wife also drives with him.

I knew a guy that got thrown out of a truck and became paralyzed he ran his own construction company to boot.

The guy that built my dads 1954 olds 88 was you guessed it paraplegic. He had a Jeep that was rolling on 48" tires. In his own words "I can get in and out of that jeep faster than anyone with two good legs". He even had a mustang that he drag raced which ran in the low 9 high 8 in the quarter mile.

Yeah i guess that there are not as many options out there for some one disabled is there.

I am sorry that is one of the most closed minded comments I have ever heard.

I have shooters at my club that are paraplegic they can still shoot rifles and pistols. Yes they ask for some one to put out their targets and that but it is kind of hard to roll a wheelchair threw 6" of sloppy mud.

azredhawk44
July 11, 2008, 01:58 PM
Isn't the G21 the LAPD service weapon?

If this is the officer's service weapon and it is defective, sounds like a civil liability to the unit armorer's office.

I'd like for the LAPD's armorer to inspect the gun and declare on-stand whether this gun is defective or not. That would make for some interesting additional drama to the situation.

Either all G21's that LAPD issues would then be defective, or this guy's case is trounced quickly between the LAPD expert testimony and the probable statements by Glock design engineers.

And... if this ONE gun is indeed defective, then it is either a failure of the LAPD internal weapons maintenance policy or the individual officer's failure to adhere to that policy.

wideym
July 11, 2008, 02:09 PM
An old girlfriend was sued when her daughter was in an accident. The daughter's friend was riding in the daughter's car and was told to put her seat belt on. The friend did not and was brain damaged in an accident. The family sued Ford, the other car owner, my girlfriend and her daughter.

They tried to stick it to Ford thinking they had deep pockets and that a jury would think so also. But in the end only the daughter was found negligent because she should not have driven the car since her passenger was not buckled up. To say the parents were disappointed would be an understatement. Its kind of hard to collect a judgement against a 19year old girl in college.

Personally I thought the passenger was at fault for not putting on her seatbelt, but 12 jurors thought otherwise.

Neo-Luddite
July 11, 2008, 03:19 PM
Especially since the little boy wasn't hurt, someone might better spend his time in reflection and prayers of gratitude than lawsuits against blamless individuals and institutions.

lysander
July 11, 2008, 03:32 PM
Of course our lawyers love this system: no matter what happens, they win because there are more lawsuits and at least two lawyers get paid in every one.

In nearly all jurisdictions...these kinds of plaintiff's suits do not have lawyer's on both sides getting paid. The lawyers on the defense side who represent the insurance companies, the manufacturers and/or the named defendants, get paid. Usually they get paid pretty well, by the hour...to KILL all claims, legitimate or otherwise.

The plaintiff's lawyers usually work on contingency and usually fund the case with their own money. They pay for experts, depositions, investigation, court time, fees etc. If they lose...they are out the money and the time they put in on the case.

I do not know what the specific facts of this case are. But it isn't impossible that the claim is valid. If the claim is truly junk it will probably get tossed before trial.

Have some faith that the system regulates itself...and understand that all the clamoring for reducing access to the courts, and for reducing liability on the part of manufacturers, wrongdoers and negligent parties...doesn't help VALID claims...in fact, more often than not, it cuts them off at the knees. You might have a valid tort claim one day...and when that happens you will be VERY disappointed with what I expect your outcome will be.

For those who worry about the plaintiff's possible fault in this...it is my understanding that CA is a comparative negligence state. Which means that the jury can decide to assign fault to both sides and reduce the award accordingly. For example, suppose this cop gets a judgment of $1,000,000. The jury then assigns fault and the plaintiff is found to be 45% negligent. His maximum possible award will then be reduced to $550,000. For those who worry that this guy was breaking the law by not having his kid restrained or by not securing the gun in the first place...don't. If those are adequate defenses, they will be asserted.

By and large the tort system gets it right. By and large when a jury's award is outside the norm, it gets corrected, either immediately by the judge or on appeal.

gopguy
July 11, 2008, 03:41 PM
If I were Enrique Chavez, I would be embarassed to let everyone know what an idiot he is...But by bringing this lawsuit he has announced it loudly. I hope he loses and has to pay their legal costs.

MakAttak
July 11, 2008, 03:42 PM
Have some faith that the system regulates itself...and understand that all the clamoring for reducing access to the courts, and for reducing liability on the part of manufacturers, wrongdoers and negligent parties...doesn't help VALID claims...in fact, more often than not, it cuts them off at the knees.

I have absolutely no faith in a system that rewards jurisdiction shopping lawyers with "class action suits" resulting in huge rewards for the lawyers to line their pockets.

There is ABSOLUTELY no incentive for the system to police itself. Are we to simply believe in the better angels of jurists' nature to be sure that people are not destroyed by lawsuits?

You point out that it will become more difficult for legitimate claims to be litigated if there were reform. I will gladly bear that cost if the MASSIVE NUMBER of frivilous cases were ignored.

Or do we want a system that encourages people to sue for whatever happens to strike their fancy that day? This is why we have such a litigious society: we often reward stupidity and rarely impose costs for it.

buzz_knox
July 11, 2008, 04:23 PM
The plaintiff's lawyers usually work on contingency and usually fund the case with their own money. They pay for experts, depositions, investigation, court time, fees etc. If they lose...they are out the money and the time they put in on the case.

Sometimes. And sometimes they take crap cases to get a retainer and then tell the clients that things just didn't work out as they'd hoped. Or they file a suit that they know is worthless but which they anticipate the defendant will settle in order to avoid the expense of litigation. The various codes of professional responsibility are supposed to prohibit this kind of conduct, but rarely do.

buzz_knox
July 11, 2008, 04:31 PM
You do not know, from the information present in the article if this resulted from the plaintiff's own negligence. You can infer...but you don't know.

It's possible that the child was able to undo the car seat, sneak up on the officer, pull the Glock 21 out of the holster without the officer realizing it, and centerpunching him. That scenario (about the only one that would justify a verdict for the officer) is about as likely as the child intentionally committing the act because the officer refused to stop for ice cream. This would, of course, be a superving criminal act which would absolve Glock of any responsibility.

In this case, an unrestrained child having access to a loaded weapon due to negligence on the part of the officer is the most likely scenario. The thing sort of speaks for itself.

DRZinn
July 11, 2008, 04:48 PM
It's possible that the child was able to undo the car seat, sneak up on the officer, pull the Glock 21 out of the holster without the officer realizing it, and centerpunching him. That scenario (about the only one that would justify a verdict for the officerThat might absolve the officer of any personal responsibility, but it still wouldn't justify any verdict against Glock, Uncle Mike's, Turner's, or the gun store.

Boats
July 11, 2008, 04:54 PM
I'll play the Devil's advocate.

It is entirely possible that the Glock is a defective design from a safety standpoint under product liability case law in California and that such a contention has not been tried in open court due to settlements and confidentiality agreements.

I remember my first reaction in the mid 80s to the fact that the G-17 had no appreciable external safety and a relatively light trigger pull:

"Somebody's gonna unintentionally kill themselves or others with that thing."

It may have been happening all along for all we know. Twenty some odd years on the market does not mean that the Glock is not a defective design.

In fact, negligent discharges are reasonably foreseeable for a pistol that features no positive external safety and a moderate trigger pull. This is underscored, ironically, by the existence of the "NY trigger" modification, which makes the Glock more like a semi-auto DA revolver in triggering, and less like a cocked and locked 1911A1 with a rough trigger and the safeties all disengaged. The NY trigger was requested by a large customer who saw the potential for unwanted harm.

If the retired LEO's attorneys have identified a bunch of confidential settlements, and have a crack technical team, they could give Glock a legitimate case of heartburn.

lysander
July 11, 2008, 04:55 PM
I have absolutely no faith in a system that rewards jurisdiction shopping lawyers with "class action suits" resulting in huge rewards for the lawyers to line their pockets.

A class action suit and an individual plaintiff's suit are entirely different animals. I'm sure that you know this.

Many on this board state that we have "enough gun laws" on the books already when discussing the antis arguments for "sensible" gun control.

Well, the same goes for the legal system. There are plenty of rules on the books (Professional Responsibility and otherwise) that are routinely used to self correct. Maybe you aren't satisfied with how long the corrections take...but the corrections happen....it just isn't sexy to report on the corrections. Judges can impose court costs and fees on losers. Licenses can be yanked if lawyers abuse the system. etc., I fully support finding those lawyers who do wrong and punishing them according to the PR codes of their applicable jurisdictions.

...but I don't support restricting the legal rights of their clients.

This is why we have such a litigious society: we often reward stupidity and rarely impose costs for it.

So your suggestion is to apply the same methodology used by the antis when it comes to guns? Create a system that clamps down on guilty and innocent alike? Just because your neighbor finds a lawyer desperate enough for dough that he takes a nuisance suit to enjoin you from running your air conditioner, doesn't mean you should craft a scheme whereby valid litigation interests get squashed also.

It is unfortunate that most of the vocal criticism lobbed at the "tort reform" movement is done by plaintiff's trial lawyers...because they are easily ignored as biased. I'm not a trial lawyer...but I've done plenty of digging in this area...and I find that most of the data, when viewed objectively, does not support the claims presented by the various mouthpieces on the right side of the political aisle. Lawsuit data trickles out pretty slowly..but I know that the DOJ did a study in 2004 (analyzing 2001 data) of the 75 largest counties in the US....only 4% of those cases saw "jackpot" verdicts over $1,000,000. This was out of about 12,000 cases. The median awards were something in the $30k range. The data also showed that the number of suits and the awards had declined significantly from 1992-2001. Yet...you'll recall from that time period that certain political forces were clamoring for "reform" and were claiming that the opposite was true.

It's possible that the child was able to undo the car seat, sneak up on the officer, pull the Glock 21 out of the holster without the officer realizing it, and centerpunching him. That scenario (about the only one that would justify a verdict for the officer) is about as likely as the child intentionally committing the act because the officer refused to stop for ice cream. This would, of course, be a superving criminal act which would absolve Glock of any responsibility.

In this case, an unrestrained child having access to a loaded weapon due to negligence on the part of the officer is the most likely scenario. The thing sort of speaks for itself.

We don't know that the kid drew the gun...we don't know the kid held the gun. We don't know if the gun ever made it out of the holster, or if the guy was even wearing the gun. That is all I am saying...if you don't have the full facts...you can't dismiss this out of hand as baseless. I would love to get my hands on a copy of the complaint itself...but I have been unable to locate it.

anarchris
July 11, 2008, 05:11 PM
I think that everyone of us would do the same thing in his situation.

I doubt many gunnies would even put themselves in this situation, we get ourselves nice retention holsters and stuff.

Really, most gunnies are more into accuracy and safety then cops who are simply city workers more interested in overtime and slacking off. (for the most part, no slight intended to gunny cops on THR)

larry starling
July 11, 2008, 05:16 PM
30 cal slob
Senior Member
why isn't the officer being charged with child endangerment on two counts - unrestrained in a moving vehicle and leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a young child?
Because Police officers have different rules than us lowly civilians have. Thats why the state police can speed up and down the interstate and not wear there seat belts. But if you and I do it were criminals...:cuss:

bthest86
July 11, 2008, 05:19 PM
Personally I thought the passenger was at fault for not putting on her seatbelt, but 12 jurors thought otherwise.

Well I was always taught that the driver shouldn't even start the car until everyone in the car is buckled up. If someone doesn't want to buckle up then they can walk. And that's always been my policy. Nobody rides in my car without their seat belt buckled.

camslam
July 11, 2008, 06:27 PM
HKUSP45C said:

The "McDonalds Lady, coffee spiller" was a perfectly reasonable lawsuit that actually paid a lot less than the jury initially awarded, more's the pity. McDonalds should have hung for the injury that poor woman suffered. They had already been aprised of the danger of their practices and chose to continue endangering the public even after having made several out of court pay offs to other injured parties.

To which I must respond, give me a break. Was the coffee hot? Obviously. So is any soup or hot beverage I prepare, with full knowledge that if it drops on me, IT IS GOING TO BURN!

My problem is this, when you start making these types of claims, where does it end?

Should we start suing knife makers that put out knives that are too sharp?

Should we start suing stereo and speaker manufacturers that play music too loud and damage our ears?

Should we sue ladder makers that make ladders allowing us to climb too high?

Where do you draw the line? Where does personal responsibility come into play? This lady knew she was getting coffee, she knew it was hot, but apparently, it was just too damn hot. It isn't like she was ordering a frosty coca-cola and got burned.

Shheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, this stuff bugs me.

Always someone else's fault.:banghead:

Elvishead
July 11, 2008, 07:43 PM
California, the lawsuit capital of the World.

Maybe he should sue God too.

David904
July 11, 2008, 09:40 PM
Man... It seems like there is a certain percentage of forumites here who derive a rather nasty bit of satisfaction that this officer got paralyzed. He may not have been a firearms enthusiast, but he may very well be a great guy - the kind you would want as your neighbor and share backyard BBQs with.

That being said, everyone should be grateful that if someone was to get hurt out of this incident, it was the father and not the child. That little boy could just as easily ended up splattered all over the back seat.

That would have been a real tragedy.

It just goes to show you that even one moments laxness in our vigilance in ensuring the safe storage and holstering of our firearms could have dire repercussions. I'm sorry he got paralyzed. I'm sorrier for the child knowing he hurt his daddy - even though it wasn't his fault. The pistol functioned as designed. The fault lay in the poor choice of holsters, the improper and unsafe storage of a firearm, and not buckling that child into his safety seat. My heart goes out to the officer's family, but I think Glock doesn't need to settle - nor should they. This is a case of contributory negligence at the very least.

Yosemite**Sam
July 11, 2008, 11:09 PM
Isn't the G21 the LAPD service weapon?

No, I believe it's an optional carry that the officer must purchase. I'm fairly certain their issued duty weapon is a Glock in .40 cal but I can't remember the model number.


If this is the officer's service weapon and it is defective, sounds like a civil liability to the unit armorer's office.

Not really. Again the the G21 is an optional carry purchased by the individual officer. Even if it was an issued gun it would be difficult to lay blame with the armory office. LAPD has at least a few full time gun pounders whom I have met yet they have around 10,000 officers. Kinda hard to keep up with those numbers. It's a fact that sometimes guns just break. In this case I place the blame on the officer who left his weapon in close proximity to his 3 year old son. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

camslam
July 12, 2008, 01:14 AM
Man... It seems like there is a certain percentage of forumites here who derive a rather nasty bit of satisfaction that this officer got paralyzed. He may not have been a firearms enthusiast, but he may very well be a great guy - the kind you would want as your neighbor and share backyard BBQs with.

Dave, I hear what you are saying, but....

I don't see people doing cartwheels over the fact this guy is in the shape he is in. I think everyone here thinks this is a sad story, and it is too bad someone was shot by accident, by a 3 year old no less. However, the officer would obviously get more sympathy and respect if he manned up and accepted responsibility instead of suing everyone and everything for HIS mistake. Nobody screwed up here but him.

When a person does what he is doing, they lose credibility, respect, and sympathy. Let's hear it for some personal responsibility, what do you think?

anarchris
July 12, 2008, 01:17 AM
micky Dee's knew they had a problem, they had been warned.
the lawsuit fixed it.
The glock worked perfectly, no design flaw.
The trigger was pulled and it went bang.

David904
July 12, 2008, 01:41 AM
I suspect that the officer's lawsuit is one born of desperation.

He knows that his ability to make a living has been shattered along with his spine. His medical bills will be sky high (unless the city pays for it.) He's looking to find a way to ensure that his family isn't financially S.O.L.

I suspect that he realizes that he was at fault. However, I bet his attorney is urging this action because of the political climate of where he lives and works.

Just a guess.

Cops do get breaks that the rest of us don't. That sucks. However, my heart really goes out to his family.

Stevie-Ray
July 12, 2008, 01:42 AM
I'm hostile to a court system that encourages and rewards frivolous and pernicious lawsuits that cause the defendant to pay thousands of dollars EVEN IF HE WINS.

When someone can use the legal system to destroy another person for no other reason than he was angered by the defendant (see the infamous "Million dollar pants" lawsuit from Washington D.C.) which then leads to most cases, even frivilous ones such as this, being settled out of court to the benefit of the plantiff, THERE IS NO JUSTICE.

Of course our lawyers love this system: no matter what happens, they win because there are more lawsuits and at least two lawyers get paid in every one.Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!

To which I must respond, give me a break. Was the coffee hot? Obviously. So is any soup or hot beverage I prepare, with full knowledge that if it drops on me, IT IS GOING TO BURN!

Where do you draw the line? Where does personal responsibility come into play? This lady knew she was getting coffee, she knew it was hot, but apparently, it was just too damn hot. It isn't like she was ordering a frosty coca-cola and got burned.Ding, ding, ding.......Our contestants are in rare form today, arent they Johnny?:D

jrfoxx
July 12, 2008, 03:05 AM
My personal feeling is that even if the gun were somehow HORRIBLY defective, it still isnt glock's fault he was shot and paralyzed. The fault is his, and his alone, as the incident was 100% casued by him alowing his child access to a loaded gun. end of story. If the gun was defective and he shot himself, or it blew up on him, that's a different story, but that isnt what happened. He had the gun loaded, round chambered, and in a place his 3 year old was able to access it, either bu having it within his reach while in a child seat, or by not having him in a child seat, and the gun was fired by the child handling it, regardless of if it somehow fired without the child touching the trigger. IMHO, it still wouldnt matter, as the child should never have been able to touch the gun, and if he hadnt, it never would have happened the way it did, defective or not.

He should get nothing from Glock, in my opinion. He honestly should count himself lucky he isnt being cited for not having the kid in a child seat (if that turns out to be the case), or some charge involving the child being able to access the gun regardless, on top of being paralyzed, or that his kid wasnt hurt or killed also.

Zach S
July 12, 2008, 06:53 AM
An old girlfriend was sued when her daughter was in an accident. The daughter's friend was riding in the daughter's car and was told to put her seat belt on. The friend did not and was brain damaged in an accident. The family sued Ford, the other car owner, my girlfriend and her daughter.

They tried to stick it to Ford thinking they had deep pockets and that a jury would think so also. But in the end only the daughter was found negligent because she should not have driven the car since her passenger was not buckled up. To say the parents were disappointed would be an understatement. Its kind of hard to collect a judgement against a 19year old girl in college.

Personally I thought the passenger was at fault for not putting on her seatbelt, but 12 jurors thought otherwise.
That might explain those :cuss: automatic seatbelts in my mother's escort that tried to tear my head off a few times...

It's possible that the child was able to undo the car seat,
Not likely.

A three year old that properly buckled into a child seat wont be able to reach the release button, and even then, the release buttons generally have too much tension for them to push.

Assuming his son was a big three year old, and had outgrown the belts on the carseat, or the seat itself, a belt positioning booster seat would be required until his son grows enough so that the lap and shoulder belts fit properly. And when properly buckled into one of those, they cant reach the seat belt buckle.

A lot of forward-facing car seats have the belt positioning stuff on it already, so when the child outgrows the three or five point harness included with the seat you dont have to buy a third car seat until the child outgrows the seat itself, then there's the booster until they're about 8 years old.

I'm no expert, but I've learned a lot about car seats in the past year, month, and ten days. If his son got out of his car seat then he didn't RTFM, or the stickers they put all over the seat.

Its a parent's job to make sure the seat is used properly, and in this father's opinion, he got what he deserved for half-assing his son's safety.

Carl N. Brown
July 12, 2008, 07:23 AM
My alternate headline:
Negligent discharge being blamed on gun maker as accidental discharge.
The owner does not secure his gun, does not secure his three year old in a moving vehicle. He should sue himself a just and perfect world.

If you enjoyed reading about "LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!