[bobnfl]

When I read this story one word came to mind "MORON"
STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID

[dkf]

The judge that decided this case has merit to go to trial is also a major part of the problem.

I hope Glock does not settle and fights the lawsuit even though it would most likely be cheaper for them to settle than go to trial.

[GThirtyTwo]

Smh...

[Will Beararms]

Was the pistol not holstered? What a reprobate father the way around. Thank God the child was not hurt.

[njl]

Brings to mind some of the lyrics from Pepper.

[rudybunt]

Some people...... all I can say is WOW!

[ashecht]

Is this the same guy who sued McDonald's over hot coffee?

[O'DubhGhaill]

Originally Posted by llll1lll1

He should be charged with child endangerment.

This. I cannot imagine the facts of this case not fitting any jurisdiction's child endangerment statute. This case clearly fits the "your ****tin' me" category and then some.

[jfost11]

Originally Posted by svtpwnz

I agree 100%. My point was that when people like this guy make poor decisions and the result is injury or death, there is always a lawyer willing to make a case no matter how absurd it is. Our legal system is in desperate need of an overhaul to a loser pays system. Then you will see many of these stupid law suits that have no reason to start go away.

As far as the whole Firestone/Ford Explorer mess is concerned, I honestly beleive most if not all of it was frivolous. Most SUV's have a high center point of gravity and are more susceptible to rolling over in a blow out vs. a car. That's just common sense. Also, many people never check their tires for proper inflation/wear until there is a problem, my wife and mother in law included. I would be willing to bet that most if not all of the folks who filed a suit against Firestone/Ford back then poorly maintained their tires/vehicle which resulted in the accidents.

You're right on all counts with the Firestone/Ford suit. Unfortunately, your common sense point had no effect. The reason Ford had to share responsibility was their recommendation of low tire pressures to begin with which were compounded when people didn't maintain proper inflation. Some called for only 30 psi while other models had placards stating 26 psi. I never went less than 30 on these. You seem to understand that after long periods without checking pressures, atmospheric conditions can cause a tire at 30 to go down to 20. Now a tire at 26 can easily be down to 16 and on a heavy SUV with a suspension that will roll, you have a terribly tail happy vehicle if a back tire is that low. Too bad many drivers don't realize or care.
Regardless of pressures, it was tested and found that even under rapid deflation, the suspect Explorer models were easy to bring to a controlled stop by anyone holding the wheel with their hands instead of their knees, and actually having any kind of basic driving skills just like all other SUVs.
However, no matter what inflation was recommended, the tread shouldn't have separated from the tire the way it did. That's why Firestone had to take their share of responsibility. This supposedly caused a different characteristic than just rapid deflation even though I believe that to be BS.

I see no way to blame Glock for this idiot's actions like Ford or Firestone were blamed in the leg bone to the neck bone sort of way. After all, it's a gun, not a car. There's one way to make it fire and for the morons that say the trigger was too light, it's much heavier than a 1911 trigger. Besides, Glock states right in the manual to not store the weapon loaded. Like it's been mentioned, why no car seat, holster? A cop should never "forget" his weapon.
I know people make mistakes. But, when they do and someone gets hurt, how is it anyone's fault but their own?

[jfost11]

Originally Posted by ashecht

Is this the same guy who sued McDonald's over hot coffee?

I thought that was an elderly woman whose thin skin was more easily scalded off.

[jc650]

If this guy wasnt a LEO he would have been charged in most jurisdictions. The "held to a higher standard" sometimes becomes held to "a lower or no standard".

[njdave]

So it was under the seat, the kid wasn't strapped in. He didn't watch his kids in the mirror? My kids one is in the baby seat and the other I check to make sure is belted in and I still look back there to make sure they are secure. So his kid climbs off the seat pulls the gun from under the front seat turns himself forward in between seats and shots his father? Was the car moving? Idk maybe Iam a dumba$& but I don't see it.

[clarson_75]

Originally Posted by ashecht

Is this the same guy who sued McDonald's over hot coffee?

that was a lady that tucked her coffee in between her legs instead of using a cup holder on her way to work. also just as stupid. I've often said for the next month Mcdonalds should have served their coffee with ice in it, and told the public to send their complaints directly to this lady.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to Stella Liebeck, who suffered third degree burns in her pelvic region when she spilled hot coffee purchased from fast food restaurant McDonald's. The jury damages included $160,000[2] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case was said by some to be an example of frivolous litigation;[3] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits",[4] while Myron Levin of LA Times stated that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".[5]
Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. Moreover, McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded.[6] Supporters of “tort reform" claim that the popular perception of the case was materially accurate, claim that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury,[7] and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills reflects the meritless nature of the suit based on the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part.[8][9][10]

[Jim85IROC]

Originally Posted by BroncoAZ

I'm not sure how you measure, but the standard glock has a trigger pull of about 1/2" (or 12.7mm) from start to finish with a pull weight of ~5.5 pounds. Hardly a hair trigger. I have shot a couple of 1911's with something in the 2-3 pound range and about 1/16" of travel, much more of a hair trigger.

What's the difference? 5lb trigger, 3lb trigger, 10lb trigger. Any 3 year old can pull that trigger. My kid's toy gun that shoots foam arrows has a harder trigger pull than any real gun I've ever shot, and he does just fine with it.

[Jim85IROC]

Originally Posted by clarson_75

that was a lady that tucked her coffee in between her legs instead of using a cup holder on her way to work. also just as stupid. I've often said for the next month Mcdonalds should have served their coffee with ice in it, and told the public to send their complaints directly to this lady.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to Stella Liebeck, who suffered third degree burns in her pelvic region when she spilled hot coffee purchased from fast food restaurant McDonald's. The jury damages included $160,000[2] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case was said by some to be an example of frivolous litigation;[3] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits",[4] while Myron Levin of LA Times stated that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".[5]
Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. Moreover, McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded.[6] Supporters of “tort reform" claim that the popular perception of the case was materially accurate, claim that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury,[7] and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills reflects the meritless nature of the suit based on the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part.[8][9][10]

I'm not defending this lady's stupidity, but 3rd degree burns from a cup of coffee is a clear indicator that McDonalds was at least partly responsible. A consumable drink should not EVER be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

[DFM914]

Pathetic.

[jjshivers]

Not a lawyer but pretty sure that Federal Law triumphs State law. Gun manufacturers were exempted from being sued in 2005 (see 15 USC Chapter 105 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms). Sure seems once it gets out of the crazy CA system into Federal Courts it should be thrown out.

Also linked Article was dated July 2012, so bet there is more up to date information.

[dkf]

You're right on all counts with the Firestone/Ford suit. Unfortunately, your common sense point had no effect. The reason Ford had to share responsibility was their recommendation of low tire pressures to begin with which were compounded when people didn't maintain proper inflation. Some called for only 30 psi while other models had placards stating 26 psi. I never went less than 30 on these. You seem to understand that after long periods without checking pressures, atmospheric conditions can cause a tire at 30 to go down to 20. Now a tire at 26 can easily be down to 16 and on a heavy SUV with a suspension that will roll, you have a terribly tail happy vehicle if a back tire is that low. Too bad many drivers don't realize or care.
Regardless of pressures, it was tested and found that even under rapid deflation, the suspect Explorer models were easy to bring to a controlled stop by anyone holding the wheel with their hands instead of their knees, and actually having any kind of basic driving skills just like all other SUVs.
However, no matter what inflation was recommended, the tread shouldn't have separated from the tire the way it did. That's why Firestone had to take their share of responsibility. This supposedly caused a different characteristic than just rapid deflation even though I believe that to be BS.

I had two relatives that got a free set of tires out of that deal. One had 7 years on the tires when they replaced for free, the other had 4 years. Same thing for other people I knew. The whole deal was a sham IMO.

[dkf]

Originally Posted by Jim85IROC

I'm not defending this lady's stupidity, but 3rd degree burns from a cup of coffee is a clear indicator that McDonalds was at least partly responsible. A consumable drink should not EVER be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

at 113 degrees you get a 3rd degree burn after 5 hours
at 116.6 degrees, after 45 minutes
at 118.4 degrees, after 20 minutes
at 120, after 10 minutes
at 124, after 4.2 minutes
at 131, after 30 seconds
and at 140, after 5 seconds.

Hot Coffee is hot. If someone cannot handle that fact, buy an iced soda or iced coffee. I would suggest not spilling either on your lap though.

[dregotglock]

Sad that this individual wants to hold GLOCK responsible for his lack of parental awareness. Anyone with a child knows that if it can be done a child will find a way to do it. Locks are included with firearm purchases for a reason...

Even more sad that the Ca court is allowing this to go forward.

Unfortunately anyone can sue anyone else for just about every imagine... anyone remember the McDonald's lady who spilled hot coffee in her lap while driving???? ummm its hot how about not putting between your legs.... its a gun how about not leaving it where a 3 year old can access it?

[DevilDocsGlocks]

Scum Bag Lawyers representing scum sucking clients.

[DevilDocsGlocks]

So now, if your 3 year old burns down your house you can sue BIC ? People in upside down mortgages take note!

[Shark1007]

Here's what I gleaned from the article and I'm as big a Glock/Gun guy as you will find and ex LEO and just retired from law practice.

The appeals court appeared to rule that the trial court made a mistake in throwing the case out and ruled that the plaintiff had stated a cause of action and told the trial court to take the case back and proceed forward.

It doesn't mean they favor the plaintiff or Glock, just that the lower court should proceed forward with discovery, take evidence and have a trial if warranted. Don't know Calif law, but Florida would likely tag a great deal on the plaintiff for negligent supervision of the child, failure to secure the weapon. In other words, a jury could find, let's say 1 million damages, 90% the dad's fault, 10% Glock, a defense verdict or some other decision.

Kind of reminds me of the cases where outboard manufacturers have been sued for no propeller cages or guards when someone is killed, paralyzed or chopped up by a prop. It states a cause of action, but not necessarily a winner.

One commenter is possibly correct, insur. co. may have forced suit, but I've seen up close, the life of a paraplegic and I can't blame them for trying anything to protect their ability to get proper care and live as normal a life as they can.

Glock is on the ball and I particularly liked the 7mill. case they filed against the distributor for selling blue label guns with changed labels at a retail price.

There's always someone in a thread like this squealing "scumbag lawyers" and all that. I've found in 30 years of practice that those same people are usually the first to come running hoping they have some case in some absurd way. The days of easy settlements are over and 1/3 of crap is still crap, so if the case has no merit, usually a lawyer won't spend thousands on Mas Ayoob and other experts unless they believe it has a decent chance of success, it's a business decision.

It will be interesting to follow this one, I'm skeptical of success for the plaintiff.

[MarcDW]

While I would not entertain this negligent behavior, lets follow this argument with the grip safety.
If the 3 year old is able to pick up a G21 and fire it, then there is a good chance that this child can take a safety off as well.
So it would not have made a difference if this gun was a G21 or let's say 1911.
This is one of these cases where people hope the defendant settles to avoid bad press and a small settlement is still cheaper then answering a claim!
Glock should be rewarded attorney fees in this case!!