Perhaps it would have been too complicated for Enrique Chavez of Anaheim, Calif. to sue himself for allowing his three year old son access to the loaded gun in the back seat of his pickup truck. So he’s suing Glock instead. “Chavez, 35, is also suing the manufacturer of the gun’s holster and the retail stores that sold him the gun and the 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.” (“Officer hurt in accidental shooting sues gun maker”, AP/San Luis Obispo Tribune, Jul. 9 via Glock Talk Forum).
18 Comments
Oh, boy, is he ever going to get some not-so-good-natured ribbing back at the police station . . . .
Then he’ll quit. And sue, citing a hostile workplace.
Why doesn’t he also sue the truck manufacturer? They should have foreseen that someone would transport a weapon in the truck, and they didn’t include a gun safe, which certainly would not have raised the cost of the vehicle very much…
I think Darwin needs some remedial target practice. Clearly Chuck’s aim is getting rusty.
I want to know why he’s not in jail.
In California it’s a crime to leave a gun where a child can get hold of it.
It is in Pennsylvania as well Bill. As a matter of fact we have a State representative going on trial right now because a neighbor kid committed suicide with a gun he obtained while watching the Representative’s house, while he was on vacation.
Ah, but this is a cop. That’s what prosecutorial discretion is for… to avoid enforcing laws against cops.
This police officer leaves a loaded firearm in his car where his 3 y/o can get access to it and he has the nerve to sue Glock and Uncle Mikes because of his stupidity? This is a perfect example why tort reform is needed.
Everywhere that I know about, the cop either should have been carrying the gun on his person or it should have been locked, concealed, and unloaded. It is illegal to store a loaded gun in a vehicle. Is that not true in California?
All things deemed irresponsible are either legal or tolerated in California. It’s sort of like Amsterdam for Americans.
HA–good luck with that one. I think the gun functioned just as it was supposed to, the trigger was pulled and the gun went off. He can sue Glock when the gun does not work as it is supposed to.
What next, is he going to sue ford if the kid takes the keys and drives the truck away.
Sue Kitchen aid when the kid spills a pot on himself
Sue the electricc company when the kid sticks a fork into the socket.
See my point, HE needs to take responsibility.
You’re wrong about tort reform. This is an example of an idiot who listened to other idiots and is willing to do anything to remove the onus of responsibility from himself and get money. He is paralyzed, likely will not have much in the state pension fund, or at least not enough to cover his expenses.
Tort reform would make it so the person whose Glock actually didn’t fire would not be able to sue. Tort reform, like suing the manufacturer, seems like the easy solution but it isn’t.
And yeah, the guy violated numerous state laws, including not having his 3 yo in a child seat, having a weapon unsecured and not on his person available to a child.
The guy is a jackass, but his lawyer is one to the nth degree. He has a duty not to take a case like this even if an LA jury, in their twisted thinking, may give him money. Hopefully the trial court will gong this case sooner rather than later. Q. Is a loaded gun with a 5.5# trigger pull inherently dangerous? A. Only if you are inherently stupid!
Analyze the liability of Glock under this fact pattern: If it were an innocent bystander that was hit rather than the jackass father, would Glock have any liability? My answer is no, becasue a 5.5# trigger pull, although a little low, is still within the normal range, and having a 7# pull would not have made a difference.I can instantly assess this and I believe no honest gunsmith or other expert would give testimony to the contrary. But if a dishonest plaintiff’s attorney buys himself a dishonest expert, then all this becomes a jury question, the expenses rise, and the crapshoot begins!
California is a pure comparative negligence state meaning the jackass father could collect 1% of the value of his injuries if he is found 99% negligent and Glock only 1%. Such a verdict would unlikely be overturned. As a disincentive for the truly liable party bringing such ridiculous suits, many states (e.g. CT) have a comparitive negligence statute whereby if the plaintiff is found more than 50% liable he takes nothing. I personally think that the 50% should be increased to 75 or 80%, but that pure comparitive negligence is not a good thing.
If an innocent bystander were indeed injured, his remedy would be to sue the jackass father for negligence. On the other hand, if Glock made a true hairtrigger pistol with say a 0.25# pull so that it discharged at the slightest jar, then I would have to apportion the fault between Glock and Jackass father.
Dear Ted and Walt.
I respectfully nominate this post for the O.L. 2008 Hall of Fame.
Sincerely yours,
Todd
To Lisa:
Tort reform does not mean that a legitimate dispute can not be brought to court.
And this particular dispute is CLEARLY not legitimate. Which means that a simple fairness would require that cases like this should have zero chance of getting to jury , should not cost the defendant anything and carry a high risk of severe sanctions for the plaintiff lawyer.
Currently, neither of these are true (the case has a reasonable chance of getting to jury, it will cost 10-100K to defend, sanctions are quite unlikely).
So why can not this case be used as an example of serious deficiencies in US tort system.
WMS,
Thank you for informative comment. It is my understanding that trigger pulls for handguns are beyond the strength of very young children. There was an actual case of a firearm accident that turned out to be a murder by an adult, because the children involved could not pull the trigger. I wonder what actually happened in this case?
On its face, this is a ridiculously frivilous suit. OTOH I have wondered if it might be just a maneuver to outflank Child Removal – er, Protective – Services by saying the child’s exposure to danger was not his fault? Also silly, but with a more sympathetic motivation.
OTOH I have wondered if it might be just a maneuver to outflank Child Removal – er, Protective – Services by saying the child’s exposure to danger was not his fault?
Maybe. On the other hand, the guy was shot in 2006. You would hope that if CPS was going to move on a case like this, they would have done so long before now.
He doesn’t really have to worry about CPS – my earlier comment about prosecutorial discretion applies to CPS almost as well.