Judge allows paralyzed dad to sue Glock

[East_TN_Patriot]

So, an off-duty LAPD officer leaves his unholstered and loaded Glock service pistol under the seat of his truck. He then takes the child seat out of his truck and goes for a ride with his 3 year old son, who retrieved the Glock from under the driver's seat and fired a shot into his dad. Now dad is suing Glock for not producing a firearm with "adequate safety features" to prevent his kid from shooting it. Give. Me. A. Friggin'. Break.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-allows-paralyzed-dad-to-sue-Glock-3732408.php

[Guest cardcutter]

Can Glock file a counter suit for the Dad being terminaly STUPID!!!?

[CM1021]

Wow this is so stupid!!!

[UncleJak]

"adequate safety features" to prevent his kid from shooting it

=keep it away from the kid. problem solved.

[daddyo]

Bad parenting can be very lucrative.

[sigmtnman]

California.

[DaveTN]

I’m sure he’s planning on a jury never hearing the case; Glock will settle.

Next up…. Glock offers external safeties.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Wow,

You know what. In light of my recent injury to my thumb I think I need to sue the knife maker for producing a knife with such a sharp blade. After all it was that extremely sharp blade that cut me and not my careless handling of it.

Dolomite

[Caster]

YOu knoiw, even GLock haters have to give Glock credit for one thing. No other gun manufacturer has made stupid people suffer more than them. I love Glock!!!

[DavidD]

YOu knoiw, even GLock haters have to give Glock credit for one thing. No other gun manufacturer has made stupid people suffer more than them. I love Glock!!!

Now thats freekin' funny! :rofl:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think Dave's right. Pay up and keep in business for a few more months.

[Ebow1]

Plus, Dolomite, I'll bet that knife company didn't even have ANY kind of information provided about safe and proper knife handling. You should find a bilboard with a lawyer in a cowboy hat and call the number on it IMMEDIATELY, before the wound heals anymore and doesn't look as bad.

[Guest CCI]

That's his own damn fault!

[JReedEsq]

California.

Exactly. California is a pure comparative fault state. What that means in a nutshell is that if a percentage test is performed by a jury to determine fault for an accident then a plaintiff can potenially recover damages even if Mr. Deep Pockets defendant is only, say 20% at fault. Or in this case 1% at fault. Pure comparitve fault can reach some pretty weird results. A few states still have have the contributory negligence doctrine which means that if the plaintiff (injured victim) does anything to contribute to their accident they get nothing. This can have some pretty unfair results too. For example imagine one driver is going 58mph in a 55mph zone when another driver (who is updating his twitter feed while crossing a four-lane highway) crosses into his path causing a serious accident. Contributory negligence doctrine would indicate that because he was speeding the driver with the right-of-way should be barred from recovering any money for his injury. Pretty unfair if you ask me.

Tennessee follows a modified comparitive fault doctrine with a 49% rule which means that a plaintiff cannot recover damages if he's more than 49% at fault for the events that lead to injury, and if they are attributed fault less than 49% their judgment is reduced by an equal percentage. Most common example would be Plaintiff driver is following all traffic rules and driving within the speed limit but has one headlight out. Defendant driver is not paying attention and pulls into an intersection causing an accident. Plaintiff has mutiple fractures and kneee surgery, lost wages etc... for damages of $100K. If a judge or jury believes that the accident was 30% caused by the headlight being out and the Plaintiff has $100k in damages he would only get $70k instead of the $100k he'd normally recieve. I may be biased because I'm from Tennessee or because I've been practicing law in Tennessee since 2004 but I think Tennessee's negligence doctrine gets it right. Or it could be that I've got common sense, but probably not....

Edited July 27, 2012 by JReedEsq

[E4 No More]

Exactly. California is a pure comparative fault state. What that means in a nutshell is that if a percentage test is performed by a jury to determine fault for an accident then a plaintiff can potenially recover damages even if Mr. Deep Pockets defendant is only, say 20% at fault. Or in this case 1% at fault. Pure comparitve fault can reach some pretty weird results. A few states still have have the contributory negligence doctrine which means that if the plaintiff (injured victim) does anything to contribute to their accident they get nothing. This can have some pretty unfair results too. For example imagine one driver is going 58mph in a 55mph zone when another driver (who is updating his twitter feed while crossing a four-lane highway) crosses into his path causing a serious accident. Contributory negligence doctrine would indicate that because he was speeding the driver with the right-of-way should be barred from recovering any money for his injury. Pretty unfair if you ask me.

Tennessee follows a modified comparitive fault doctrine with a 49% rule which means that a plaintiff cannot recover damages if he's more than 49% at fault for the events that lead to injury, and if they are attributed fault less than 49% their judgment is reduced by an equal percentage. Most common example would be Plaintiff driver is following all traffic rules and driving within the speed limit but has one headlight out. Defendant driver is not paying attention and pulls into an intersection causing an accident. Plaintiff has mutiple fractures and kneee surgery, lost wages etc... for damages of $100K. If a judge or jury believes that the accident was 30% caused by the headlight being out and the Plaintiff has $100k in damages he would only get $70k instead of the $100k he'd normally recieve. I may be biased because I'm from Tennessee or because I've been practicing law in Tennessee since 2004 but I think Tennessee's negligence doctrine gets it right. Or it could be that I've got common sense, but probably not....

Yes, but their medical malpractice laws suck! A one year statute of limitations????

[vontar]

LAPD officer should have been trainned to know how to property secure his weapon. Under the seat of the truck is not the best idea. Second, why did he remove the child seat? I thought there wear laws that required child seats for kids under a certain age/size. Seems an officer would know that as well.

Just another example of person A, doing something dumb, getting hurt and suing person (company) B.

Then the Jury,(judge) Awards person A large sum of money for admitting how dumb they where to hurt themselves using a device in an improper fashion causing personal injury. Then they punish company B because person A found a new and interesting way of hurting my them self.

BTW, I used to ride motorcycles allot and I turned them over my fair share number of times. I never once considered suing anyone. It was on my fault and or doing.

Wow,

You know what. In light of my recent injury to my thumb I think I need to sue the knife maker for producing a knife with such a sharp blade. After all it was that extremely sharp blade that cut me and not my careless handling of it.

Dolomite

I bet that knife didn't have a safety device either? Just mirror the other cases. Edited August 3, 2012 by vontar

[runco]

Right or wrong, this case will never see a trial. There likely will be settlement, and a gag order, and we will never here about this again. Read the book on Gaston Glock. There were many lawsuits in the early days, and they had on staff attorneys that their purpose in the company was this sort of thing. Just make it go away without too much publicity. So the dad will likely get $100K, his attorney $40K, and the net will be $60K. No admission of liabilty by Glock. By the way if he is succesful with a settlement, his health care insurance could come after him for recovery of his medical expenses even if no trial. I have heard of that before. This is sad, just life and our great tort system. This sort of stuff goes on all the time, most of it never makes it to the media.

[Guest nysos]

The state should take his kid away, throw the case out of court, and lock him up for letting his kid ride in the truck w/o a carseat + the fact that he let the kid get to the gun.

[ted]

Doesn't the glock come with the cable lock like all pistols do. So he had the extra safety but he failed to use it hummmm

[TMF]

At least the kid didn't shoot himself. Hard to believe that a cop that allows his 3 year old access to his DEPARTMENT ISSUED firearm resulting in incident would still be a police officer... but then again, California. Hopefully I'll get to see that utopia destroy itself in my lifetime and take Hollywood with it.

[vontar]

At least the kid didn't shoot himself. Hard to believe that a cop that allows his 3 year old access to his DEPARTMENT ISSUED firearm resulting in incident would still be a police officer... but then again, California. Hopefully I'll get to see that utopia destroy itself in my lifetime and take Hollywood with it.

I have a thought on that, with even signatures anything can be put on the ballet in CA. That is how they keep trying to legalize POT. Just get the same people to get the signatures put on the ballet and vote in Equal Heath Care for everyone in the state of CA, equal to what their Senators and Congress get. I bet they could get voters for that. (Did I say everyone, I guess that they would vote that even for their illegal immigrants. ) Then the state would go even more broke and that fake utopia would be fixed.

[Seabeejason]

Only in Commiefornia. Where everything is always someone else's fault.

[pcrc11]

Right or wrong, this case will never see a trial. There likely will be settlement, and a gag order, and we will never here about this again. Read the book on Gaston Glock. There were many lawsuits in the early days, and they had on staff attorneys that their purpose in the company was this sort of thing. Just make it go away without too much publicity. So the dad will likely get $100K, his attorney $40K, and the net will be $60K. No admission of liabilty by Glock. By the way if he is succesful with a settlement, his health care insurance could come after him for recovery of his medical expenses even if no trial. I have heard of that before. This is sad, just life and our great tort system. This sort of stuff goes on all the time, most of it never makes it to the media.

I am sure they look at it as just the cost of doing business.

[True Grit]

Should have had a RIF chip in a service gun and then only he can shoot himself.

see this linkfor safer guns http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/04/63066

[deerslayer]

Next up…. Glock offers external safeties.

Doubt it.