LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

[Socrates]

The argument about the AD is going to be in deposition. It will consist of expert testimony, and past records, of as many people shooting themselves, or others, with Glocks, unintentionally. If for no other reason that this information should be discovered, and, the trial should move forward, I think the officer is justified in bringing suit. Glock may decide they don't want the information made public, and settle.

Often the 2 year period is used to see what the final results of the injury are going to be.

The original pleading is just that, and, IIRC, can be modified, to some extent. It is better to throw in every issue, and party possible into that pleading, and, likewise every argument.

I do not know the man's lawyer, or firm, so, I don't know his tactics.

 

[brentfoto]

Why the case was brought-based on my speculative opinion

This theory may be similar to the Ford Pinto case, where design was such that it was not state of the art to place gas tank where located, resulting in more fatalities in collisions through explosions.

Or just imagine airbags NOT being federally required, yet all manufacturers provide them bar one or two.

There are better examples, no doubt.

Here the theory is that through a forseeable misuse the gun got into the hands of a 3 year old. The 3 year old doesn't know much and plays with the gun and is able to discharge the weapon, acting like a usual dumb 3 year old. Why is that? Why is it possible for an incompetent 3 year old little rug-rat to engage the weapon?

The gun has no true manual safety as we know it in the industry, and a 5# trigger pull. Had the gun had a safety it would arguably be safer and perhaps the incident would have been averted. Plaintiff would have an even weaker case and Glock would then have an even stronger case if such a manual safety existed.

Heck, if they require it for the Armed Forces, and now XD is coming out with the option, the argument is conceivable. It may or may not fly.

Here is why I believe the case was brought: we have Prop 51 in California, so if father is 99% negligent and Glock is only found 1% negligent it will be fully liable for 100% of lost earnings, future lost earnings, medical bills, future medical bills, and other special damages. (They have insurance for such things). However, Glock would only be liable for 1% of plaintiff's past, present and future pain and suffering, which includes emotional distress.

I think the plaintiff has a clever lawyer, and presented with the law, it would be foolish for anyone not to pursue the matter, given the position of this unfortunate man. The law in California is of 'comparative' negligence. 'Contributory' negligence on the part of plaintiff would have 'barred' plaintiff's claim altogether if plaintiff were only slightly negligent, even 1%.

But contributory negligence is no longer the law in this State. The Court felt it resulted in too many injustices, so now they apportion fault between the parties, with an apportionment for pain and suffering but full responsibility for medical bills, etc., if found 1% or greater negligent. There's insurance for such things. And I haven't heard much about insurance companies being in the red.

Given the law, it could be argued that a lawyer would be liable for professional malpractice in not bringing such a case if the retained lawyer let the statute expire.

 

[teeroux]

I can hear his excuse already

Well your honor,

Children dont need carseats to keep them safe, they need a Glock for protection.

 

[tyme]

Or just imagine airbags NOT being federally required, yet all manufacturers provide them bar one or two.

Really? SigArms (many), Glock (all?), Walther (e.g. P99... any others?), HK (e.g. LEM versions), Springfield Armory (e.g. XDm, the plain XDs apparently got safeties this year), Smith&Wesson (e.g. M&P series). Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. That covers many of the top manufacturers. There does not appear to be an industry consensus that manual safeties are desirable.

Many LE agencies have recently switched standard issue firearms to 5+ lb DAO, no-manual-safety handguns. I suppose all of those agencies should be liable if a LEO forgets about a gun and some 3-year-old kills or maims someone with it? Many of those agencies, as I understand it, have as part of the initial RFQ the requirement that the gun have no manual safety. How can any rational legal theory hold Glock liable for something that many LE agencies have as a requirement?

It doesn't matter very much where fuel tanks are from a functional perspective. In stark contrast, manual safeties on guns are a hot topic; everyone understands the implications, and many people still vehemently oppose them, for very good reasons. The two cases are not comparable.

The gun operated as intended. Making a gun safe in the hands of a 3-year-old is not the job of a gun manufacturer. Hand geometry identification would almost certainly have prevented this. I don't see anyone who supports this lawsuit arguing that Glock is negligent because they didn't support that common sense gun safety feature that would (most likely) have prevented this tragedy. Why not?

Here the theory is that through a forseeable misuse the gun got into the hands of a 3 year old. The 3 year old doesn't know much and plays with the gun and is able to discharge the weapon, acting like a usual dumb 3 year old. Why is that? Why is it possible for an incompetent 3 year old little rug-rat to engage the weapon?

Because an incompetent cop left the weapon on the back seat? The idea that a manual safety would prevent a shooting in that situation is highly speculative, and IMO very unlikely. I reiterate my question about hand geometry safeties, which would likely have prevented this nonsense. Hell, they made an appearance in a 1980's-era Bond film, and probably before. Why don't we have them? Obviously it's due to negligence and greed on the part of the gun industry.

 

[brentfoto]

Hand-geometry grips. Is this fact or fiction? Sounds like a good idea.

The issue that you apparently do not understand is that of design defect for the stupid things that people do. Because people make mistakes (unlike some of you who would never admit to same), and those mistakes may or may not be forseeable.

You have made some observations that should be considered. If it's a LE only weapon then Glock might have even less exposure.

The gun is probably so familiar to many officers that they become lax about it. It's forseeable that what happened could happen. I don't know whether plaintiff would prevail before a jury but there would certainly be a lot of sympathy for the guy. That's something to consider for settlement purposes.

No doubt it's a very tough one for plaintiff. But only 1% negligent design as having a causal link to the harm suffered puts Glock on the hook for this one..Unlike some, I try not to show my biases for or against plaintiff or a gun manufacturer. I only try to objectively give my viewpoint; I gave some insight about the law in California which I hope is accurate.

I'm not all caught up in the emotion of whether Glock should be sued or not, and the strong bias some of you have in favor of the gun manufacturers (and their insurance companies).

 

[PT111]

When I worked with the power company we had a lot of guy wires hit by people in cars especially in certain locations. When you hit a guy wire with you car it makes the pole shake, sparks fly and lots of time outages. Every now and then we would approach our legal department about putting some kind of protection around it such as a short pole so that when it was hit it wouldn't hit the guy wire but the barrier. We were repeatedly told that to place some kind og barrier we were admitting that it was a hazard and owuld then be liable. If Glock were to now put a safety on their guns they would be admitting that their safeties are not adequate and the fellow would have a great case. The car manufactures put an airbag in the car but what if it doesn't work in a crash? Liability law is screwed up but juries that feel sorry for someone being stupid are worse. One thing I have learned through the years is no matter what you do to try and protect the public it isn't enough. You make something idiot proff and along comes a bigger idiot.

The reason the gas tanks were in the rear of the Pinto is because the daughter of the designer was killed in a firey crash in a volkswagen with the gas tank in the front. Talk about irony.

 

[brentfoto]

What you say is not correct about the law. A 'subsequent repair' can not be held against a defendant. There's a public policy in most jurisdictions that forbids such evidence from being entered to encourage improvements in design and safety.

And with that I leave this thread...

 

[tyme]

I'm not all caught up in the emotion of whether Glock should be sued or not, and the strong bias some of you have in favor of the gun manufacturers (and their insurance companies).

How does the fact that Glock has insurance make it more reasonable for them to be liable? That may not be what you're saying, but that's what it seems like you're saying. Insurance carried by makers of inherently dangerous products is not meant to be a general fund to be tapped into whenever a tragedy occurs through (mis)use of those products.

Hand-geometry grips. Is this fact or fiction? Sounds like a good idea.

I think this is where we'll have to disagree. It is a horrible idea. I don't know if anyone's come up with a functional test model, but hand geometry is sometimes used for access control to secure areas, and it is pretty picky (I've used it). Aside from the complication of integrating it into a handgun frame, the basic technology does exist. The pickiness could be reduced a lot if the only objective is to prevent 3-year-olds' hands from being authorized. Unfortunately, it would require electricity, which means batteries, which means more weight and less reliability.

The issue that you apparently do not understand is that of design defect for the stupid things that people do. Because people make mistakes (unlike some of you who would never admit to same), and those mistakes may or may not be forseeable.

It's not a matter of understanding. What you propose is not reasonable. The presence of a traditional manual safety is in direct opposition with the desired functionality many handgun buyers desire. Nobody's denying making mistakes. There are some mistakes, however, that other people or companies are simply not liable for, even if their products were used during the "mistake." What you consider a design defect, others consider to be superior operation. That is very much different from a gas-tank-location issue, where nobody considers a vehicle blowing up after a crash to be superior operation.

 

[tyme]

What you propose seems similar to the idea that we should dull all kitchen knives and blunt the tips so that children won't stab or themselves so badly. Knives are inherently dangerous. So what if it makes it a bit more difficult (and dangerous) to cut food? It's foreseeable that children will misuse knives, so why is there no liability there? Furthermore, anyone selling knife sharpeners should probably be liable as well.

Or, perhaps, limiting cars to 35mph. It's foreseeable that people will drive recklessly, so built-in limiters to ridiculously low speeds should be mandatory in order to prevent liability in reckless driving cases. It doesn't matter that this interferes with the design feature of being able to get somewhere in half the time. All that seems to matter in your view is that there are foreseeable consequences that aren't engineered against.

It makes no sense to apply what you might consider to be common sense safety requirements to inherently dangerous items like knives or guns or cars unless there's a design defect where they're not operating as intended, or in catastrophic events (crashes) they tend to blow up or do something else that's not within the normal intended behavior of the otherwise dangerous item.

There is no end to such speculative engineering efforts, and thus no limit to the degree to which "defect" fixes (required by your theory of liability) would hamstring desired operation of inherently dangerous products. If the gun had had a traditional manual safety, someone would be whining about built-in trigger locks or hand geometry or some other safety feature that might or might not have helped.

 

[Socrates]

Argue all you want, it's not going to affect the case. I have little love for folks that charge the limit of what they can get in the market, while selling the same gun for 200 dollars to LEO as a loss leader, for advertizing. I have even less love for insurance companies, the remoras of companies, who have managed to become filthy rich, with questionable business practices.

So, let the guy sue, let the insurance company settle out of court, and pay for the poor guys medical bills. He's going to b e in a wheel chair, with a deaf son for the rest of his life. That's enough of a penalty.

I also wonder if, since it occured off duty, the police insurance won't cover it, due to negligent actions on the officers part.

At least if it goes through discovery, we might find out the real facts on the case, rather then getting our panties in a bunch over a newspaper report.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I'm not all caught up in the emotion of whether Glock should be sued or not, and the strong bias some of you have in favor of the gun manufacturers (and their insurance companies).

Emotion? Bias?

Glock designed a product that functions exactly as designed. Pull the trigger and it goes bang. This cop chose to purchase the Glock knowing full well how it functions. Through his own negligence and in violation of state laws, he left his firearm where a child could gain access to it.

Emotion? Yes, I'll admit to this one. I HATE lawsuits where people blame everyone but themselves for their screwups. I HATE lawsuits that cause the cost of products to be higher because they have to have insurance. I HATE lawsuits where insurance companies merely feed the animal by settling out of court because it is cheaper.

Don't forget, the guy is suing the business where he bought the gun, the holster manufacturer and the business where he bought the holster. He was injured due to his own negligence, yet he wants others to cough up money to pay for it.

They should charge him with child endangerment instead of letting him sue everyone.

 

[sousana]

They should charge him with child endangerment instead of letting him sue everyone.

I so totally agree. And I'm wondering if this idiot is back on the street protecting us.

 

[Socrates]

Yes, he was reinstated this week. They are working on an Iron Man armour for him, but, until that, or the Dr. Octopus arms are completed, he's going to be roaming East L.A. in his motorized wheel chair.

READ the story!!! The guy is paralyzed for LIFE!!!

It's REALLY nice to see people don't let complete ignorance of the facts affect their opinion.

Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.

 

[obxned]

This guy is just trying to cash in on his own stupidity. He was trained at the tax payers expense to never do what he did.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

READ the story!!! The guy is paralyzed for LIFE!!!

It's REALLY nice to see people don't let complete ignorance of the facts affect their opinion.

And exactly how does this justify his lawsuits or decrease his negligence?

If the 3 year old had shot itself instead of dad, would he be suing Glock or in jail for letting his child have a gun?

 

[thallub]

READ the story!!! The guy is paralyzed for LIFE!!!

Not surprising. The idiot put his kid in the back of the truck along with his gun.

And exactly how does this justify his lawsuits or decrease his negligence?

If the 3 year old had shot itself instead of dad, would he be suing Glock or in jail for letting his child have a gun?

#1

This guy is just trying to cash in on his own stupidity. He was trained at the tax payers expense to never do what he did.

If this idiot had stopped John Q public for speeding and found John's kid in the back seat playing with a loaded gun it would have been off to jail time.

 

[Al Norris]

Before everyone gets their knickers twisted worse than they already are, please read this:

And I'm wondering if this idiot is back on the street protecting us.

READ the story!!! The guy is paralyzed for LIFE!!!

Now that I've put this in context, do I hear any apologies?

 

[Playboypenguin]

Now that I've put this in context, do I hear any apologies?

I did not jump on you since I understood what your were saying but I will apologize anyway...I have been married for sixteen years. It is second nature to apologize for things I did not do by now.

 

[thallub]

Yes, I know the nutcase is paralyzed. That happens when you put a kid in the back of the truck with a gun to play with.

 

[Sidetracked]

I have no sympathy for the idiot.

He placed a loaded firearm within the reach of an unrestrained child.
1. Loaded
2. Firearm
3. Child
4. Unrestrained
5. A firearm with no external safety
6. Got what he deserved

As stated back on page 2 or 3, this guy won the living Darwin award.