Let's sue Glock!

Sue glock because one of their guns was left around and someone got hurt?

That's like suing a car manufacturer because one of their cars was used in a hit-and-run.
 
Whose fault is this one?
Click to expand...
Wait. Let me think, here. Multinational corporation with gobs of cash...

Yep! Sue Glock! They were criminally negligent by virtue of not having put a warning label on the gun itself advising against its use by anyone ten and under.

Glock may settle. They've done that routinely in the past, even when they haven't been at fault. Of course, that's before the "victim" made a huge deal of it in the media, so they may choose to stand and fight on this one.
 
Enrique Chavez, who claimed his service pistol, a Glock 21 handgun, had a light trigger pull and lacked a grip safety, an attached device that requires deactivation before firing.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't such features make this weapon not included on California's "Safe Gun" list? If not, maybe it should be. Thankfully this man (and his progeny) are around to show us the error of our ways.
 
Yeah, well... We all know the usual script with these dramas... Some ambulance-chasing lawyer approaches the guy and talks him into filing the lawsuit on spec so with nothing to lose and a "maybe" to make some $ he says "OK".

No big deal.
 
The grip safety on my 1911 has got to be much lighter than a flocks tigger pull. I can buy the argument making an extra step to fire but not that a grip safety would be too stiff for the kid.



From Glenn's link

The California Second Court of Appeal said Tuesday a jury could conclude a grip safety strong enough to withstand a 3 year-old's grasp "would minimize the risk of accidental discharge without undermining performance," and in a 3-0 ruling, allowed the case to continue.
 
Interesting that they went with the grip safety argument instead of the thumb safety. It isn't clear if they are making a negligence or products liability claim on this.
 
@Stressfire, by current standards yes, but guns already on the list get to stay on the list as long as the maker keeps paying the state even if they don't meet the most current revisions. Beyond that it was his service pistol, not a personal pistol, and even then LEO are exempt from the list in CA.

It's completely his fault, I'm just glad the kid is young enough that he likely won't remember shooting his own father.

It is a misdemeanor or felony to allow a child to access a firearm in California depending on the outcome of that access, but I'm guessing since he was an officer at the time the DA didn't bring charges. It was probably viewed as a tragic accident rather than gross negligence and child endangerment.

We get those nifty cable locks thanks to California law(I still haven't found a use for them, maybe if I had a tiny bike), perhaps he should have utilized one, or any of the many other options to properly secure a firearm from a child.
 
A dollar or a donut, take your pick it's about safe trigger and/or lack of externals. Can you really get whacked for being too user friendly? Tell me if I'm out of line here, is it ergonomics or safety at issue?
The guy should be grateful if a judge would call it poetic justice and be done.
 
My fellow ambulance chasers will take a weak case like this one with big damages over a great case with small damages all day long. That is all that is going on here, trip and fall lawyer with big general and special damages case and idiot client. Would not surprise me if this was filed in Los Angeles Central Division (Downtown) Superior Court. All in all, unfortunately, this is a "great case."
 
Last edited:
Glenn, I caught this a couple of weeks ago over at Calguns.net. We had a large thread on this, back in 2008, before we shut down the L&P forum:

LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

It should come as no surprise that a CA appellate court decided the ex-cop could sue, based upon the lack of safety on a Glock... A gun that can't be purchased in CA, unless you are LE.
 
You know whats really worse than him sueing. That this is the character of a man that was working as a Law Enforcement Officer. I'm LE and I would be so ashamed for what I represent over an incident like that happening, much less to ever try a suit as if it wasn't my own fault.
 
@Al, Gen 3s are on the roster. Gen 4s are not, however they can still be single shot exempted. But given the time of this it was a Gen 3 or older, g21 anyway.
 
I am not familiar with the "Can't be fired by a 3 year old" safety standard. I am familiar with the "Don't leave your loaded gun where your 3 year old can find it and play with it" rule however. But if Glock can be found 10% at fault that might pay the lawyer fees....
 
1) It's a tragedy
2) Who left the gun out
3) What state was this in?...

Between the 9th Circuit frequently overturned decisions and the thought processes commonly found in California, is this really a surprise?

California, sprechen zie Tort Reform?
 
Sigcurious, thanks for that reminder!

Way too many snags in CA gun laws for any one person to remember, if you don't live there.
 
sigcurious said:
@Stressfire, by current standards yes, but guns already on the list get to stay on the list as long as the maker keeps paying the state even if they don't meet the most current revisions. Beyond that it was his service pistol, not a personal pistol, and even then LEO are exempt from the list in CA.
Click to expand...

I was being facetious more than anything;)

We get those nifty cable locks thanks to California law(I still haven't found a use for them, maybe if I had a tiny bike), perhaps he should have utilized one, or any of the many other options to properly secure a firearm from a child.
Click to expand...

I found a pretty good use for the one I got with my GP - it secures my gun and reloading room door when guests and their children visit
 
*Sigh* I oughta know to stay outta this, but I just can't resist . . .

1) It's a tragedy.
2) Leaving a handgun where a 3-yr-old can reach it is well into the realm of stupid.
3) If the Glock design is defective, THOUSANDS of LEAs nationwide seem to have missed the memo.

BUT . . . in reversing the grant of a motion to dismiss, the appellate court is just saying that a jury could find for the plaintiff. Nothing more. There are plenty of ways for Glock to establish some measure of fault (perhaps even 100%) on the part of the Plaintiff, but I'm not convinced that no jury could reasonably find that the design is defective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top