- Messages
- 17,471
- Reactions
- 36,484
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Glock Settles Neglignet Discharge Case
- Thread Starter RicInOR
- Start date
- Messages
- 497
- Reactions
- 191
Never a good idea to settle a case when you know your in the right. Could be they have opened the door for more law suits in the future. Cop was at fault, had his head up his a** from the way story read.
- Messages
- 385
- Reactions
- 860
Why settle, the gun performed as it's suppose to.
1.The cop knew it did not have a grip safety yet left it accessible to his 3yr old.
2. The cop didn't put his kid in a child restraint (against the law) which allowed the 3yr old access to the gun.
"(Chavez) admits that he could have easily prevented this incident by following (Glock's) warnings, his LAPD training and some common sense," according to the handgun manufacturer's court papers.
So again why did they settle?????
1.The cop knew it did not have a grip safety yet left it accessible to his 3yr old.
2. The cop didn't put his kid in a child restraint (against the law) which allowed the 3yr old access to the gun.
"(Chavez) admits that he could have easily prevented this incident by following (Glock's) warnings, his LAPD training and some common sense," according to the handgun manufacturer's court papers.
So again why did they settle?????
- Messages
- 7,315
- Reactions
- 23,250
The new for 2016. ''Police Safe Glock Action''! 
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 385
- Reactions
- 860
- Messages
- 23,284
- Reactions
- 111,580
Glock may have settled , but I bet the discussion of how safe a Glock pistol is or isn't ,will never settle down.
While I don't really care for the looks or design of the Glock series of pistols , that's beside the point.
I am sorry to learn that officer is paralyzed.
It seems like the owner of the pistol in the OP did just about everything you can do wrong with a gun, any gun and still survive.
As harsh as it sounds, what happened was the fault of the owner , not the pistol.
Guns don't care how you feel or what you think.
They just do what they are designed to do.
It pays to never take them or basic safe firearm handling for granted.
Andy
While I don't really care for the looks or design of the Glock series of pistols , that's beside the point.
I am sorry to learn that officer is paralyzed.
It seems like the owner of the pistol in the OP did just about everything you can do wrong with a gun, any gun and still survive.
As harsh as it sounds, what happened was the fault of the owner , not the pistol.
Guns don't care how you feel or what you think.
They just do what they are designed to do.
It pays to never take them or basic safe firearm handling for granted.
Andy
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 10,374
- Reactions
- 29,745
Stupid people will never blame themselves.
Remember we live in a "it's someone else's fault" society.
Ever since a dumb broad sued for spilling coffee in her lap
Remember we live in a "it's someone else's fault" society.
Ever since a dumb broad sued for spilling coffee in her lap
- Messages
- 15,651
- Reactions
- 39,146
Typically the country will follow suit as to how the POTUS acts on such things if he puts the blame on anyone or anything that's is what the country will do and this is what we have it his fault or that things fault not me or mine
I actually think Glock should have fought the good fight and won. Settling is so often viewed by the public as a sign of guilt. I don't feel the least bit bad for this guy. Yeah, he was a cop and is now paralyzed, but he tried to "get rich quick" off of his own stupidity and blame it on a company who's product he mishandled. It's like suing for spilling hot coffee on your crotch. What an azzclown.
http://mynewsla.com said:
how is this even possible to use as a claim against Glock?
http://mynewsla.com said:
I cannot understand how this guy was even allowed to reach a settlement after admitting his own negligence.
Something is off or more to the story. My guess is the settlement wasn't much and he took the bait cause he knew he couldn't win, maybe Glock knew they could prevail but didn't want the media coverage leaving an impression that they don't care about safety.
- Messages
- 17,471
- Reactions
- 36,484
- Thread Starter
- #11
Ever since some couple ate from a tree in a garden.
Gaston Glock refused for years to alter the plastic cases his pistols were shipped in, even though they were proven to be dangerous when you placed a loaded pistol inside and dropped the case.
He was adamant that the warnings inside the cases and just having general good sense to unload the firearm before packing would alone prevent people from having accidental discharges.
After three or four multi million dollar lawsuits, he finally allowed the removal of the round pillar posts that fit inside the guns trigger guard.
He was adamant that the warnings inside the cases and just having general good sense to unload the firearm before packing would alone prevent people from having accidental discharges.
After three or four multi million dollar lawsuits, he finally allowed the removal of the round pillar posts that fit inside the guns trigger guard.
It's not just the mentality of the dumb broad who spilled the coffee and decided to sue, it's also the stupidity of the jury that awarded her millions!! What a messed up society we have to deal with!!!
Gads!!!!
- Messages
- 225
- Reactions
- 472
Glock makes a gun that relies upon the operator to be aware of where the fudge-knuckle you put your trigger finger to a much greater degree than most other firearms.
There is no way that Gaston could have made a safety that accounted for the lack of operator head-space and timing that would engage and save the hapless operator from the results of a negligent discharge.
There is no way that Gaston could have made a safety that accounted for the lack of operator head-space and timing that would engage and save the hapless operator from the results of a negligent discharge.
- Messages
- 11,209
- Reactions
- 40,980
that's complete BS. why is glock resposible for this guys negligence/stupidity/idiocy/mental incompetence . some peoples kids man... guys its OK to teach our kids theres no reason to have responsibility for your own actions... nah not when u can just sue someone. BS
- Messages
- 6,072
- Reactions
- 15,023
Apples and oranges...It's not just the mentality of the dumb broad who spilled the coffee and decided to sue, it's also the stupidity of the jury that awarded her millions!! What a messed up society we have to deal with!!!
The actual facts in the McDonalds coffee case never made the sensationalist mainstream media. One fact is that to stretch the coffee grounds as far as possible the McD's coffee makers were set to 195 degrees as a corporate policy. McD's had already settled something like 4000 injury claims without modifying their 195 degree policy. Those claims included several where the bottom of the plastic cup actually melted. One guy had second and third degree burns on his foot where the scalding hot coffee fell into his shoe when the bottom of his cup melted out. The woman in question had extensive second degree burns (blistering) in the hip and thigh area, as well as some third degree burns if I remember the case correctly.
So the facts are that McD's was serving dangerously hot coffee in order to maximize their profits. They knew people were being injured by their dangerously hot coffee, but it was cheaper to settle the claims than to change the policy.
When you are willfully negligent with the safety of others and they are thereby injured, then punitive damages may be applied. Punitive damages are usually excluded from any insurance coverage because the acts are willful. The legal standard for assessing punitive damages has nothing to do with the magnitude or severity of the actual injury. The standard is whatever it will take to get the attention of the offending party and discourage them from doing the same thing again. How much money do you think it takes to get McD's corporate attention and deter them from bad behavior? Remember they were regularly spending tens of thousands of dollars to settle previous claims. Would $100,000 do it? Probably not. Would it take $1M to get their attention, or maybe $10M?
Similar threads
