LOL - Lawsuit Against Glock

View · by **PileDriver** on Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:46 pm

California’s Second District Court of Appeal said on Tuesday that a paralyzed Los Angeles police officer, who was shot by his 3-year-old son, could move forward with his lawsuit again gun manufacturer Glock.

Enrique Chavez’s lawsuit claimed that the Glock 21 had a light trigger and lacked a grip saftey, both of which could have prevented the shooting.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/25/p ... -shot-him/

Words can't even describe...

View · by **The Lance** on Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:54 pm

Another one will bite the dust..

Forgetting a gun in a car is a terrible execution of firearm safety and the manufacturer should not be liable for your idiocracy

View · by **Stradawhovious** on Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:55 pm

So this guy doesn't have his 3 year old in a car seat (violation of California state law), and leaves a loaded handgun bouncing around under the seat of his car (violation of California state law), and his kid shoots him with it.........

Father of the year right there.

I hope he gets taken to the cleaners.

I'm surprised he's not suing his kid too. :roll:

View · by **gwilley1** on Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:59 pm

Frivolous Lawsuit in Cali? No, couldn't be? HahAhaha that being said he will probably settle outside of court.

Sent via carrier pigeon!

View · by **Stradawhovious** on Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:02 pm

The Lance wrote:the manufacturer should not be liable for your idiocracy

Huh?

View · by **Rip Van Winkle** on Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:34 pm

Stradawhovious wrote:I'm surprised he's not suing his kid too.

The kid's got no money.

View · by **AFTERMATH** on Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:44 pm

He's a cop - They don't have to abide by the law.... :roll:

Perhaps, the kid was aware his father was in violation of the law and was attempting to make a citizens' arrest.

View · by **yang** on Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:30 am

I'm sure buyers are well aware of what safeties are on the firearm before purchase.

This won't fly.

View · by **gwilley1** on Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:02 am

yang wrote:I'm sure buyers are well aware of what safeties are on the firearm before purchase.

This won't fly.

That's what they said about the lady with the hot coffee in her lap. Guess what she won.

View · by **aaron878** on Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:30 am

gwilley1 wrote:
yang wrote:I'm sure buyers are well aware of what safeties are on the firearm before purchase.

This won't fly.

That's what they said about the lady with the hot coffee in her lap. Guess what she won.

Why is that poor lady the poster girl for frivolous law suits? The coffee was beyond hot, it was nearly boiling, and she had to get skin grafts on her legs from where it burned her.

View · by **JeremiahMN** on Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:31 am

If this was a duty issued weapon shouldn't be suing the police department too for making him use such an unsafe weapon? :roll:

View · by **tman** on Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:01 am

aaron878 wrote:
Why is that poor lady the poster girl for frivolous law suits? The coffee was beyond hot, it was nearly boiling, and she had to get skin grafts on her legs from where it burned her.

She shouldn't have spilled the coffee. Proper coffee serving temp is as much as 185 degrees.

How is that McDonald's fault?

View · by **plblark** on Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:15 am

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/79371

Read the whole thing ...

McDonald’s had a policy of serving its coffee at temperatures ranging from 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit to enhance flavor and ensure that to-go cups were still warm when they reached their destinations. (The coffee that you brew at home probably comes out at around 140 degrees, so there’s a significant difference.) Moreover, experts testified that skin can burn quickly when contacted by liquids at these temperatures.

More damning, though, was McDonald’s own testimony. The company admitted that in the decade before Liebeck’s incident, upwards of 700 customers had filed complaints about its coffee causing burns. McDonald’s argued that the 700 complaints were only one for every 24 million cups of coffee sold, though, so the danger was statistically insignificant. (Note to any aspiring trial lawyers out there: it’s probably not a good idea to bring up statistical significance when there’s a severely burned grandmother sitting in front of a jury.)

View · by **jshuberg** on Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:36 pm

Shouldn't this lawsuit be prevented under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005?

Prohibits a qualified civil liability action from being brought in any state or federal court against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm, ammunition, or a component of a firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or against a trade association of such manufacturers or sellers, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, penalties, or other relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm. Requires pending actions to be dismissed....

I believe that negligent discharge of a firearm by a child would be considered unlawful misuse.

View · by **gwilley1** on Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:28 pm

If that lady didn't want hot coffee maybe she should have ordered Iced coffee, just sayin'. If I order coffee I expect it to be hot!