California Court: reasonable jury could conclude Glock design faulty

[DefiantDad]

California Court: reasonable jury could conclude Glock design faulty

Reading this thread would be an an exercise in futility for me. The basic premise of the court case is bogus. The real trial should be the on the negligence of the gun owner. He left it where his son, uneducated in firearms safety, could get to it.

Woody

I think it's just the "next step" in the series of actions that have created such things as the revolver lock, etc.

 

[SHR970]

It is interesting that the court chose to use the word "faulty" and not "unsafe".

Had they chose the word unsafe then it would go to CPC 31910(b)(1) et. al.


31910. As used in this part, "unsafe handgun" means any pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, for which any of the following is true:
(a) For a revolver:
(1) It does not have a safety device that, either automatically in
the case of a double-action firing mechanism, or by manual operation
in the case of a single-action firing mechanism, causes the hammer
to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the
primer of the cartridge.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device,
as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by
the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
(4) Commencing January 1, 2006, for a center fire semiautomatic
pistol that is not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section
32015, it does not have either a chamber load indicator, or a
magazine disconnect mechanism.
(5) Commencing January 1, 2007, for all center fire semiautomatic
pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section
32015, it does not have both a chamber load indicator and if it has
a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism.
(6) Commencing January 1, 2006, for all rimfire semiautomatic
pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section
32015, it does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism, if it has a
detachable magazine.
(7) (A) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols
that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015,
it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of
characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the
pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the
interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that
are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm
is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the
technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one
manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.
(B) The Attorney General may also approve a method of equal or
greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific
serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings discharged by
that firearm than that which is set forth in this paragraph, to be
thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this paragraph where
the Attorney General certifies that this new method is also
unencumbered by any patent restrictions. Approval by the Attorney
General shall include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by
the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that method for
purposes of this paragraph.
(C) The microscopic array of characters required by this section
shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's
number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing
number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the
meaning of Sections 23900 and 23920.

 

[SHR970]

Criminal Storage of a firearm CPC25100-25130


25100. (a) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits
the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the first degree" if
all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that
are under the person's custody or control.
(2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is
likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the
child's parent or legal guardian.
(3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes
death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person.
So far this seems to be the case.

(b) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the
crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the second degree" if all
of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that
are under the person's custody or control.
(2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is
likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the
child's parent or legal guardian.
(3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes
injury, other than great bodily injury, to the child or any other
person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in
violation of Section 417. (Does not apply here)


25105. Section 25100 does not apply whenever any of the following
occurs:
(a) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry
to any premises by any person.
(b) The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location
that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.
(c) The firearm is carried on the person or within close enough
proximity thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use
the firearm as if carried on the person. Maybe applicable
(d) The firearm is locked with a locking device, as defined in
Section 16860, which has rendered the firearm inoperable.
(e) The person is a peace officer or a member of the Armed Forces
or the National Guard and the child obtains the firearm during, or
incidental to, the performance of the person's duties. Maybe applicable but doubtful
(f) The child obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a
lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person.
(g) The person who keeps a loaded firearm on premises that are
under the person's custody or control has no reasonable expectation,
based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to
be present on the premises.



25110. (a) Criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree is
punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section
1170 for 16 months, or two or three years, by a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and
fine; or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by
a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that
imprisonment and fine.
(b) Criminal storage of a firearm in the second degree is
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year,
by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both
that imprisonment and fine.



25115. If a person who allegedly violated Section 25100 is the
parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies as the
result of an accidental shooting, the district attorney shall
consider, among other factors, the impact of the injury or death on
the person alleged to have violated Section 25100 when deciding
whether to prosecute the alleged violation. It is the Legislature's
intent that a parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who
dies as the result of an accidental shooting shall be prosecuted only
in those instances in which the parent or guardian behaved in a
grossly negligent manner or where similarly egregious circumstances
exist.This section shall not otherwise restrict, in any manner, the
factors that a district attorney may consider when deciding whether
to prosecute an alleged violation of Section 25100.



25120. (a) If a person who allegedly violated Section 25100 is the
parent or guardian of a child who was injured or who died as the
result of an accidental shooting, no arrest of the person for the
alleged violation of Section 25100 shall occur until at least seven
days after the date upon which the accidental shooting occurred.
(b) In addition to the limitation stated in subdivision (a),
before arresting a person for a violation of Section 25100, a law
enforcement officer shall consider the health status of a child who
suffered great bodily injury as the result of an accidental shooting,
if the person to be arrested is the parent or guardian of the
injured child. The intent of this section is to encourage law
enforcement officials to delay the arrest of a parent or guardian of
a seriously injured child while the child remains on life-support
equipment or is in a similarly critical medical condition.



25125. (a) The fact that a person who allegedly violated Section
25100 attended a firearm safety training course prior to the purchase
of the firearm that was obtained by a child in violation of Section
25100 shall be considered a mitigating factor by a district attorney
when deciding whether to prosecute the alleged violation.
(b) In any action or trial commenced under Section 25100, the fact
that the person who allegedly violated Section 25100 attended a
firearm safety training course prior to the purchase of the firearm
that was obtained by a child in violation of Section 25100 is
admissible.


25130. Every person licensed under Sections 26700 to 26915,
inclusive, shall post within the licensed premises the notice
required by Section 26835, disclosing the duty imposed by this
chapter upon any person who keeps a loaded firearm.

To further bolster the case of negligence on the plaintiff the article shows that he was in prima facie violation of CVC 27360

27360. (a) Except as provided in Section 27363 a parent, legal
guardian, or driver shall not transport on a highway in a motor
vehicle, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (3) of Section
27315, a child or ward who is under eight years of age, without
properly securing that child in a rear seat in an appropriate child
passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle
safety standards.

So the way I read this is a LEO violated the law, got shot and seriously wounded. He is now trying to prove that the "Faulty" design of his "Safe" handgun is why he is in the condition he is in. So we go to Product Liability and everything that entails for his attempt to prove that Glock owes him money for HIS probable criminal negligence. I would really love to hear the forums lawyers takes on this.

 

[SHR970]

Prereinstatement article concerning the case.
Renzulli Law Firm

 

[Jim K]

Since LE officers have been proven to be reckless and irresponsible individuals, the state should immediately do what Robert Sherrill (The Saturday Night Special*) proposed years ago - disarm all the police immediately, as the most dangerous people to have guns, and the easiest to disarm.

*Sometimes called "the bible of the gun-control movement in the United States."

Jim

 

[Bubbles]

So the way I read this is a LEO violated the law, got shot and seriously wounded. He is now trying to prove that the "Faulty" design of his "Safe" handgun is why he is in the condition he is in. So we go to Product Liability and everything that entails for his attempt to prove that Glock owes him money for HIS probable criminal negligence. I would really love to hear the forums lawyers takes on this.

Interesting. I wonder if Glock's attorneys will raise the unclean hands defense even though the LEO was not charged with a violating the safe storage law.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Where I glock, I would pull a Barret on them
Immediatly VOID all warranties, refuse to a sell parts and guns to the state and LE
and remind the legislature what the 'LE' discount means when they can't afford new guns,
then have the lawyers move to ban glocks in the state, and refuse to let them remain in LE circles.

Call the shenanigans, put it in the table and call, wouldn't be surprised if the judge find themselves in need of a new job.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I wonder if Glock's attorneys will raise the unclean hands defense...

The doctrine of "clean hands" is not applicable at all in this type of case. But there are a number of ways for Glock to raise the argument that the primary cause of the damage is the father's fault.

 

[BSA1]

Was this a foreseeable accident?

As the story goes to the best of my hazy memory somwewhere around the turn of the 19th century Dan Wesson designed a small frame revolver he thought was child proof so he gave it to one of children to test it. A little later there was a bang. Back to drawing and he added the grip safety.

How many children have fired guns accidently since then?

I have never liked the lack of a external safety on the Glock. I viewed the Springfield XD as a improvement due to its grip safety.

 

[S.W.G.]

I do, however, believe that a lever-locking trigger such as Glocks have should not legally be considered a safety device as it does nothing to inhibit the weapon firing if the trigger is accidentally bumped or pulled, and these guns should have to have a manual safety as well.

People put WAY to much importance on manual safeties. Unless I'm at a public range, with some cranky RO breathing down my neck, I don't use one.

If you don't want the gun to discharge, don't pull the trigger. As simple as could be.

Unless you are prone to epileptic seizures, there is no such thing as an 'accidental' pull of the trigger.

 

[Prosser]

Glocks and accidental discharges? This is not the first, nor will it be the last.

The Glocks 'features' are also it's greatest liability. Pull gun, pull trigger, gun goes bang. Great for LEO and or people that don't train that much, and really aren't that into shooting.

I'm not sure any redesign is in order. The Glocks greatest feature is you pull the gun and you don't have to worry about any safety under pressure, to disengage. Still, that doesn't mean the manufacturer is free from liability if that feature puts someone in a wheel chair.

Glock has a difficult time with this, since their adds say:

http://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action


Kahr's manual, first page:

THIS PISTOL WILL FIRE IF THE TRIGGER IS PULLED!

Kahr makes no effort to claim a 'safety' system, really.
They do have a new model that has a external safety.

If Kahr can add an external safety, and the LCI, I don't see why Glock can't, if they want to do business with LEO in Kali.

An external safety would likely have stopped this event from ever happening.

 

[Johannes_Paulsen]

This was not an 'accidental' discharge. The gun worked exactly as it was supposed to.

 

[TT]

Prosser: It would not be the end of the world, if Glock had to pay a bit of money for a design that contributed to putting an officer in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

The design did not contribute to the accident, the fault was entirely with the officer who negligently left the firearm where the child could reach it.

Safeties, ones that actually ARE safeties, require a bit of knowledge of the design, and may stop such situations from happening.

There have been plenty of negligent discharges with safety-equipped firearms. The idea of relying a firearm’s safety for accident prevention is rejected by every gun handling instruction I’ve ever seen.

 

[danez71]

I dont believe that California has a requirement for a manual safety.

Several of the M&P are approved without the manual safety and none of the models with a manual safety are approved (because they were never subbmitted to CA for testing.)

I do believe that CA has a mag safety requirement though.


Previously sold guns into CA are grandfathered as long as they keep their CA approval up to date.

If they didnt grandfather them, they would essentially have to confiscate them and that isnt going to happen.



While I do prefer the manual safety, glock isnt at fault here. The LEO dad is.

To blame glock would be like blaming every car manufacturer for not including a child seat in their cars when a child gets hurt while not in a car seat.

Personal responsibility, or lack there of, is the issue here.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I dont believe that California has a requirement for a manual safety.

That is correct. And Glocks on the California Roster of Handguns Approved for Sale have complied with all safety requirements as necessary under California law to be listed and remain on that Roster.

 

[Mr.357Sig]

So Glock is responsible for the stupid actions of an off-duty cop? Only in California.

 

[cacoltguy]

So this moron (a suppssedly trained professional) left HIS gun in HIS car and HIS young child shot him with it which makes it GLOCK's fault? It's tragic that he was paralyzed from this but if anyone is at fault for anything it's himself. Funny thing is that the government of California thinks you should depend on some cop like this for protection because the general public is obviously not trustworthy when in possession of a firearm. (sarcasm intended)

 

[SHR970]

Originally posted by Frank Ettin

Quote:
Originally Posted by danez71
I dont believe that California has a requirement for a manual safety.

That is correct. And Glocks on the California Roster of Handguns Approved for Sale have complied with all safety requirements as necessary under California law to be listed and remain on that Roster.

The part in bold is an incorrect statement....CPC 31910(b)(1)

31910. As used in this part, "unsafe handgun" means any pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, for which any of the following is true:
(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device,
as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by
the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

I cited this above in an earlier post. Whether we as an individual or group agree or not; the trigger mounted safety on a Glock is considered a positive manual safety device by BATFE as evidenced by the fact that they allow the importation of said makes / models into the country. What it lacks is a safety device external to the trigger.

The italicized part of the statement further points to the fact that the gun is still deemed as "safe" by the State and still remains available. This is why I find the verbage used by the judge to be interesting....."design is faulty" vs. "unsafe". It can not be "unsafe" because the State has determined it to be safe and compliant with current law.

 

[One_Jackal]

Ever hear of bryco or jennings? That is where glock is headed. In the jennings suit the plaintiff pointed the gun at another humans face and pulled the trigger. a CA jury awarded someone who was flat out dangerous with a gun enough to put bryco/jennings out of business.

If this case involved a civilian they would be facing criminal charges for putting an unlocked gun in the reach of a child. Since this guy is LEO the law doesn't apply to him.

 

[Auf Grosser Fahrt]

Can a 3-year old rack the slide on an unchambered Glock?

Excellent! +1 on that!

 

[Bubbles]

If this case involved a civilian they would be facing criminal charges for putting an unlocked gun in the reach of a child. Since this guy is LEO the law doesn't apply to him.

Never mind that he also failed to put his three year old into a child safety seat.

 

[Godsgunman]

So my question is can I sue this deadbeat cop for being stupid and irresponsible and for giving the antis more fuel for their fire?
There's one person responsible and thats the guy who got shot. Unfortunately stupid things happen to stupid people. Thankfully the kid didn't shoot himself also. No one ever wants to take responsibility.

 

[rem44m]

I agree with Godsgunman- What ever happened to personal responsibility for your decisions? Unfortunately we are becoming a country of victims and handouts. Especially California.

You left your gun under your seat loaded and then "forgot" about it (stupid move) unfortunately YOU made a bad decision and YOU will have to live with that. Not Glock.

If I get drunk and drive and crash my Ford pickup is Ford responsible?? Or better yet is Jack Daniels responsible?? Pretty much any excuse to place blame any where but myself.

I feel sorry for the LEO but he is responsible.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the trigger mounted safety on a Glock is considered a positive manual safety device by BATFE as evidenced by the fact that they allow the importation of said makes / models into the country...

Point taken.

It would be more accurate to say: The Glock satisfies any California requirement for a positive, manually operated safety device.