TexasCHLforum.com

Since he's also suing the holster maker, presumably the gun was holstered at some point, meaning:

- A 3 year old was able to draw it from the holster; or,
- The holster didn't retain the pistol, so that the boy found it laying loose; or,
- The holster didn't fit the pistol, such that the boy was able to fire it while holstered.

None of which negates the fact that a police officer, one of the few people California deems trustworthy to carry a handgun, illegally left said handgun within reach of his 3 year old son, who was illegally riding unbuckled in the back seat.

seamusTX wrote:I'm curious why a lawyer is filing this suit.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibits lawsuits in state or federal court based on the use or misuse of a firearm that functions as designed. Any judge should throw out the case on preliminary motion. If a biased judge (they exist) allows the case to go to trial and the plaintiff wins, it would be reversed on appeal.

California also has a state supreme court ruling holding that manufacturers cannot be sued in state court for misuse of firearms that function as designed.

- Jim

Out of court settlement. He and the lawyer are hoping that someone settles out of court to keep this under wraps instead of waiting for a "sympathetic" judge to hear the case and make it a national event to rekindle the Brady Campaign's agenda.

THINK OF THE DADS!!!!!!!!!

I don't see why the manufacturers would give them a nickel. Every lawsuit against a manufacturer or dealer was thrown out after the PLCA passed, except for those in the court of one Judge Weinstein, who was overruled. The plaintiffs don't get to pick the judge, and they have a limited choice of venues.

Paying any settlement would encourage similar claims.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Paying any settlement would encourage similar claims.

It's like giving in to the demands of terrorists, other than temporarily as a feint.

boomerang wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Paying any settlement would encourage similar claims.

It's like giving in to the demands of terrorists, other than temporarily as a feint.

You and I can say this till the cows come home, but for some companies not just rolling in dough to fight cases all the time, sometimes it is cheaper for them to settle out of court than to fight it in court and risk losing. A large portion of suits against large companies are filled with this in mind. They Sue for $100's of millions, but are really only expecting $10's to a few $100 thousand to shut them up. My company gets these cases every once in awhile and they pay up because we have a public image to uphold and don't want that kind of case to go to court and tarnish the name.

Do you mind posting the name of your company for people looking for an easy mark?

I feel sorry for this dude more than anything else. On top of being paralized he will now look like a jerk and his SON will have to re-live this whole episode. He will quite possibly end up the butt of jokes and become the poster child for stupidity in our time during his 15 minutes of fame... and I don't see him getting anything for the trouble ... totally insane.

Actions have consequences.

Anygunanywhere

The only thing defective in this scenario is the guys brain. Glocks are great handguns. I know because I have four of them with thousands of rounds through all of them. Glock is a great pistol but it can not overcome stupid. This bozo is an experience LEO. He know this. He's just grabbin' for the do-ra-mi. A good lawer and a jury of antis and he could come out smellin' like a rose. What a shame.

I don't know about y'all but I'd like to know how this one turns out. Remember it happened in Kalifornia!

Walkin' Jack wrote:I don't know about y'all but I'd like to know how this one turns out.

I set up a Google alert on the plaintiff's name. The only things that have showed up are some repostings on blogs.

- Jim

Thanks Jim!

Of course, here in Texas leaving a loaded gun where a child can access it is a crime all in itself.

I really doubt the guy will succeed. I suspect he hopes the gun companies settle out of court so he can get some money to pay for his medical bills. Still, it was totaly his fault. I bet the gun even had one of them trigger locks.

Well he will have to live with himself.

Glock should countersue the guy for not having a safety device between his ears!

Well said Mr. Dodge.

I have 4 kids ranging from teens to toddler, the only gun not locked in the safe is the one attached to my belt.

This story is sad for so many reasons I could not begin to name them all.

I feel bad for the dad being paralyzed, however it was his negligence that caused this.
The son however has to live with this his whole life, all because of the fathers negligence and lack of common sense with firearms.

Suing Glock is just a way to get taken care of for life by using the system as it should not be used.

I would not call this a Glock no safety thing as this guy seems to be so unsafe with firearms, Do you really think the safety would have been on (assuming it was a 1911)? and with that a 3 year old could not figure out a safety?