LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker
- Thread starter CountGlockula
- Start date
- Status
entropy
Member
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!
HKUSP45C
Member
CypherNinja said:
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.
Lonestar49
Member
The question is..
...
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
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
...
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
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
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
Member
ilbob said:
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
Member
That 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No Way Dude
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)
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
Member
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...
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
Member
HKUSP45C said:
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:
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:
- Status
