|
|
Post by hacker54 on May 14, 2016 21:19:03 GMT -5
Well guys if ya remember from the old house when I posted about a civil lawsuit being allowed to move forward against GLOCK. A little refresh to get up to speed. A LAPD officer was accidently shot with his issued GLOCK by his three year old son. This incident left him paralyzed from the waist down. His claim for the lawsuit is if the gun had a grip safety his son would not be able to fire the gun. Those of you that understand double action only handguns like GLOCKs and similar have about a 10lb. trigger pull. Some might be a tad more or lighter. My S&W Sigma is damn near 20lbs. I stated this then and still will state it today if the GLOCK had a grip safety that child would still be able to pull that trigger. So GLOCK settled as it would be more cost effective than to have drawn out in court for x number of years as some can stretch out for years. Maybe our resident council "Pooh" can shed light on how long court action can take. So here is a link to read the article. bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/05/12/glock-settles-negligent-discharge-case-paralyzed-ex-lapd-cop/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate |
|
poohzilla
Member
Give me a place to stand and a long-enough lever, and I will invariably break the lever.
Posts: 1,050 
Location: New Hamster
|
Post by poohzilla on May 15, 2016 10:53:15 GMT -5
Hacker, notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff was a slob, in that he didn't properly secure the firearm or the child *, the risk of taking that case in front of a California jury wasn't worth it. The settlement was no doubt for a smaller amount than demanded, and Glock gets some sort of confidentiality agreement, so there isn't too much blood in the water to attract more litigation. Another thing to consider it that Glock's insurance carrier was in the mix on this, and wanted to cap its exposure and the amount it had to set aside in loss reserves. In cases like this, insurance counsel calls much of the tune. If you don't cooperate with your carrier, you get denied coverage. On the defendant's end, the suit has been pending for something like eight years-probably everyone was tired and wanted to move on.
*In my view, children should be locked up in a secure location to assure the safety of guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by hacker54 on May 15, 2016 11:02:30 GMT -5
Pooh,
I was guessing as much. The insurance carrier is the one dishing out the money. As they say money talks and they would want the cheapest route. And as you stated it was in a Cali. court and most are lib ran systems.
|
|
bob
Member
I'm too old to be nice but never too old to learn!
Posts: 1,457
Location: Northern California
|
Post by bob on May 15, 2016 12:07:17 GMT -5
Pooh,"*In my view, children should be locked up in a secure location to assure the safety of guns." Interesting thought and a good idea in some cases but probably not PC though.
I think Glock and the ammunition supplier and manufacturer should have to pay through the nose for allowing this tragedy to occur! After all if the ammo maker hadn't made the ammo, the supplier wouldn't have the ammo to supply then the gun would not have been loaded and left on the bed which brings me to the bed and mattress folks who should also be included because the bed was too low allowing the toddler access to the unsecured loaded loaded Glock.
|
|
jbnut
Member
Posts: 169
Location: Warren, Pennsylvania
|
Post by jbnut on May 15, 2016 19:06:01 GMT -5
The State of Cali should be liable for not enforcing the child car seat laws.
|
|
My daughter came from Missouri, my son and grand son, my wife and I had a nice dinner of grilled "porter house" pork chops, corn on the cobb, my son, G'son and I share 10/5. G'son is 4 minutes early though @ 10/4.
Pooh I hope you find to right house . 
