LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

B

Big Don

New member
Lawsuit alleges gun has inadequate safety provisions.
By ERIC NEFF
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
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.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-lawsuit-alleges-2089579-chavez-shot#
======
Hmmm, what was junior doing crawling around in the back seat of the vehicle, unrestrained (not allowed in Kalifornia), with dad's unattended firearm available to a minor child (not allowed in Kalifornia)??
The poll that accompanies this article has 90% voting against this guy, 1% against Glock and 8% saying "it was an accident."
 
Warning labels are the life support for the terminally stupid!

HMMM baby is whining... let him gnaw on my plastic loaded pistol...
Why in the heck is there a loaded pistol with a 3 year old!
And 10 years as a cop you woulda thunk he would at least unload it before allowing a toddler to play with it...
Brent
 
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.
Click to expand...
Do these kinds of people know English?

"Defective" and "accidental" do not mean what this guy and his lawyer seem to think they mean.
 
This suit is a case of a lawyer hoping for a settlement to avoid court time but I have a feeling it will be fought and thrown out.

There is nothing wrong with the gun, the gentleman that got shot is the only thing in the equation that is "inadequate" and "defective."
 
$$ Can you say CHA CHING ??

The officer is avoiding responsibility blaming anything other than his own neglegence. It is regretable that he was cripled but it is his own fault.
 
Maybe if he bought something with an external safety... :rolleyes: And no, I am not trying to start a "Glock is above all else" war... I love Glocks...:D Just cant find a .45 that fits my hand. :D If the father was more responsible he wouldve never of had this problem. But chalk it up to the Antis in Kalifornia if this case goes the distance and he actually gets his settlement, because you already know they will have a field day with this one:eek:...
 
Glock lawyer:

"Your honor, we fully acknowledge that Glock's firearms are unsafe. That must be why they are approved for use by most law enforcement agencies in this country, and why they passed the CA DOJ's own handgun safety tests in order to be approved for private sale in this state. Obviously, police departments and this state itself have nothing but contempt for the safety of the citizens they protect and serve."

Would almost be worth the jail time for contempt...
 
I wonder if Glock and the others will be able to bring into evidence

the LEO's training and CA state laws about endangering a child?
 
Maybe if he bought something with an external safety...
Click to expand...

I really doubt a 3 year old futzing with a loaded gun for an indefinete period of time would be stopped by most any manual safety (i'd especially expect a 1911 to click off quite easily) but rest assured, even in that case, this moron would be pleading the same "negligence".
This suit is nonsense and I can't imagine even the anti-gun state of Kalifornia would rule in this fellow's favor.
 
I hope he gets slapped with a child endangerment fine as well as a traffic ticket for not having the kid in a child seat.
 
Somebody has to pay the hospital bills, and, this guy is going to pay for the rest of his life.

Wonder if he can still work? Desk job?

I can't think of a more horrible, less likely situation then this one. The baby is probably deaf, and, I wonder how badly injured?

I'm too old to find joy in the incredible pain this stupidity has caused...
 
I'm too old to find joy in the incredible pain this stupidity has caused...
Click to expand...

I don't think many of us are, I'm not. But it's hard to be sympathetic at the same time when he's clearly money-grubbing anywhere he can (remember, he's not just suing Glock, but the gun shop, and Uncle Mike's).
 
I do not like Glocks. I dislike their operation and consider them poorly designed for the average shooter because they fail to account for common human fallibilities.

That is not what this case is about.

This case is about a moron letting a 3 year old bounce around in the back of his moving car with his loaded handgun. If he had crashed the car after being shot and injured the child who was not in a child seat would he blame Glock for that as well? Probably.

This should be tossed out of court and Glock should sue him for damage done to their product name.
 
Sometimes after the case is lost by the Plantiff, the defendant company still gives the plantiff some bucks to shut up and not appeal.

Ruger has done that with a dude who clearly had one of those early not drop safe revolvers, ignore the instructions and the free mods. Then he dropped it and shot himself. He sued and lost - Ruger still gave him some bucks after the loss to shut him up and stop and appeal.
 
Ohh, yeah. This lawsuit is not about a defective gun. The officer just wants Glock to pay for supporting him and his family for the rest of his life because of his stupidity. And of course, the lawyer wants to stick out his greedy hand. Only in America. :barf:
 
If there's any liability (arguable), I would suggest that 95%-99% of it, if not more, would be attributable to the cop, so in a comparative negligence State like California, the case is not thrown out if there is some negligence on the part of the manufacturer.

This is a case where there are 'good' injuries but there appears little to stand on re liability.
 
If there's any liability (arguable), I would suggest that 95%-99% of it, if not more, would be attributable to the cop
Click to expand...
How anyone can suggest that the cop is not 100% liable is beyond me. That is like saying the company that built my vacuum cleaner is liable if I take it outside and beat my neighbor to death with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top