Judge allows paralyzed dad to sue Glock

[iusmc2002]

This is the reason ladders have warning labels telling you to not fall off them and buckets have warnings telling you to not let your baby drown in them. Don't the courts in L.A. have more pressing matters to deal with? Furthermore, not to question anyone's parenting skills but in my opinion three years is about the right age to teach a kid that guns are not toys. Negligence is not something that should be rewarded. We saw a few months ago what happens when you leave loaded guns around kids who don't understand the damage a bullet can do. It's never too early for the gun safety talk.

"I'm not saying we should kill stupid people, I'm saying we should remove all the safety labels and let nature take it's course."

 

[rur862]

This is a perfectly reasonable lawsuit from a "defective design" basis...

...Since firearms are NOT regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, lawsuits are how bad firearm designs are pressured to become more safe or risk being driven from the market.

Historically, the threat of lawsuits against "unsafe" designs is not the driving factor towards producing quality, safe, reliable firearms;
rather, the threat of the market (that's you an I folks) responding negatively by not purchasing their products is enough for companies not to cut corners.

The lack of government regulation on gun standards is actually a wonderful example of how well capitalism works.

Guns are required to safely digest extreme pressures from a variety of different types of ammunition and withstand enormous heat while remaining reliable, accurate, and drop safe. Guns like Glock do a amazing job at this completely without any government safety intervention, much to the surprise of adherent statists.

There are also additional risks associated with the threat of having firearms regulated by the CPSC, the most notable being that the government agency would make guns so safe that they couldn't even fire.

It's a shame that this 3 y.o didn't shoot his moronic, negligent, thuggish father in a more vital area.

 

[deen_ad]

I thought Federal Law precluded suing a gun manufacturer for a defective weapon?

 

[volcomdork182]

"I'm not saying we should kill stupid people, I'm saying we should remove all the safety labels and let nature take it's course."

Funny stuff. (the comment above) i feel bad for the guy but seriously, that guy should have been more responsible with a gun and a minor present. Its not glocks fault, its the gun owner. Irresponsibility comes at a toll. Unfortunately it took away his legs.

Sad story, but in my eyes, i would rather live my life being a paraplegic then living with knowing my child died because of my irresponsible gun ownership/handling. People with kids please keep the guns away, unless they are on the range and know the safety essentials.

 

[biggie24420]

I think Glock should sue this guy for child endangerment.... can you imagine this cop coming to your aid?

 

[deen_ad]

People with kids please keep the guns away, unless they are on the range and know the safety essentials.

Actually the best thing is to teach them gun safety. I had my first .22 at 12. The ammo and rifle were kept together in an unlocked cabinet over the basement stairs. It never shot at nor killed anyone, and neither did I!!

 

[Boats]

I thought Federal Law precluded suing a gun manufacturer for a defective weapon?

No, that's the exception to the law. You can't sue gun makers for "causing" crime. They were being sued under public health and nuisance theories. Now you only have the traditional claims for defective design, warranty non-perfomance, etc.

 

[DeanfromOregon]

.....can you imagine this cop coming to your aid?

Not anymore.



HEEEEEEEYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

 

[Riot]

This is a perfectly reasonable lawsuit from a "defective design" basis.

I would agree if the gun actually had a flaw in it's design. But it doesn't. Your arguement is that because manual cars have clutches, they are safer to use than automatics due to having to manually putting it into gear. If you push the gas peddle, it's on you what that car did, sir.

Regardless of its action type, there has been a pistol with a 4-5 pound stock trigger pull for over 100 years. It has both a thumb and a grip safety that have to be deactivated and activated, respectively, before the trigger will trip the sear.

Then there is Glock, running a 4-6 pound stock trigger pull with really only that little doohickey in the trigger from stopping the trigger from deactivating all of the passive safeties in the weapon while completing the last of the cocking on the striker.

By this arguement I guess revolver manufacturers should be sued too...

An engineer could be, and apparently was, found who'd readily say that the Glock's design is inherently deficient for preventing accidental and negligent discharges. Both prior and subsequent state of the art regarding "light" trigger pulls in handguns paints the Glock as the oddball design.

I hate to break this to you, but Glock is not the only striker fired, semi-auto pistol without a grip safety.

There is a universe of negligent discharges out there to tap to get an expert to conclude Glocks are defectively designed from a firearm safety standpoint.

I'm sure any side of any court can get an "expert" to defend or attack any side of any arguement. It's the power of money, Boats.

Since firearms are NOT regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, lawsuits are how bad firearm designs are pressured to become more safe or risk being driven from the market.

If the gun caused damage to the shooter (i.e. because of the unsupported chamber) then I would agree with you. But this gun injured someone on the business end after someone pointed it at them and pulled the trigger. The gun did exactly what it was suppossed to do while the dad did everything that he wasn't suppossed to do (leave a loaded gun out for his dumb child to play with).

You may call me all the names you like if you absolutely have to be infantile about this topic, but it won't change the fact that the lawsuit isn't "frivolous" as it is still very much alive.

Alive or not has nothing to do with the fact that this is a frivolous lawsuit. It just means that the judge is probably anti-gun.

Calling me or the plaintiff names is not going to change the facts on the ground that Glocks have been the common denominator in an inordinate amount of documented negligent discharges, easily compiled into a compendium of stories that can be pointed to Glock in aid of having the question posed, "You don't see a problem here?"

I also hear that the leading cause of divorce is due to the fact that two people got married. Want me make a pie chart for you to take to show and tell?

That kind of question, no matter what you think of it, goes to whether the Glock is a sufficiently safe design in light of the state of the art. Whether you like it or not, that question can be answered in the negative on a completely rational basis that has nothing at all to do with "hate."

Besides, even if Glock's design is found wanting, the plaintiff could still be very much found to be the most negligent party given the circumstances. His argument boils down to, "Yes, I screwed up by forgetting my chambered service piece in the back seat. That said, were I issued Brand X, it is next to impossible, as supported by my experts, that a three year old would have been capable of firing it. Since the gun was triggered by a three year old, its design negligent in that regard.

I was once told by an Army EOD (Explosive Ordinance and Demolition) tech that "mines don't disciminate". Well in this case, neither does a gun. If you honestly think that a grip safety, a manual safety and a 10lb trigger pull would have stopped a child from taking a loaded gun and shooting his dad then you are a fool, plain and simple. An airbag may make my car safer, but that doesn't mean I should drive 100mph or not wear my seatbelt because I know that I have inflatable pillows all around me. The best safety for firearms is education and common sense, not a lawsuit from a dude that left a loaded gun out for a 3-y/o.

 

[Misterbill]

I really feel bad for the guy who is paralyzed from the wist down. That is truly a fate I would not wish on ANYONE. I'd rather be dead.

But the reason this idiot suffers from that condition is because of his own stupidity.

Does ANYONE think that a handgun, ANY handgun, is safe in the hands of a three-year-old? Or SHOULD BE?

How about this: Why doesn't the three year-old sue his dumbass father for depriving him of a healthy dad with a decent income through the stupidity of leaving a loaded handgun in reach of a three-year-old? -A far more valid suit. And to add, if tthis happened in a "safe gun storage state" the father should be in prison for a felony. Oh, wait, that doesn't fit the Gunz-R-Evul narrative...

 

[Riot]

Does ANYONE think that a handgun, ANY handgun, is safe in the hands of a three-year-old? Or SHOULD BE?

Nope.

Why doesn't the three year-old sue his dumbass father for depriving him of a healthy dad with a decent income through the stupidity of leaving a loaded handgun in reach of a three-year-old?

Me likey. We'll call it "Ret@rded Association Liability". If Glock is liable for what happens when you leave a loaded gun out for a child to play with then my Serta is just as liable if I smoke in bed and it catches fire.

"Your honor, Serta should have made the bed more flame resistant. I want $10M for damages."

Same arguement, different item. His negligence caused his own demise, yet someone else should suffer? I don't buy it.

 

[theephotoguy]

All that really needed to be done was the gun put up and away. If this guy would of done his part in keeping the guy away form unauthorized handlers!! (3 year old) It would of never happened. Its clearly his fault and if he truly thought it didn't have the proper safeties he should of gotten a pistol with what he thought had proper safety devices. In my opinion, the only safety you need is your mind if you cant use that you shouldn't have a gun or you deserve what you get from not doing your part.