Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2013, 12:04   #61
jc650
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Western, NY
Posts: 46
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".
__________________
Every year there's a little less here.
jc650 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 14:02   #62
njdave
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3
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.
njdave is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 14:46   #63
clarson_75
Senior Member
 
clarson_75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashecht View Post
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]
__________________
Our two party system is like a giant bowl of **** staring at itself in the mirror ~ Lewis Black

This nation is lead by a government that doesn't care what the law is and filled with a majority of people that don't care what the government does.
clarson_75 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 15:49   #64
Jim85IROC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoAZ View Post
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 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 15:51   #65
Jim85IROC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarson_75 View Post
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.
Jim85IROC is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 15:55   #66
DFM914
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 13
Pathetic.
DFM914 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 16:48   #67
jjshivers
eodcolret
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 14
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.

Last edited by jjshivers; 02-20-2013 at 16:51.. Reason: Additional information
jjshivers is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 18:22   #68
dkf
Senior Member
 
dkf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,680
Quote:
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 is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 18:25   #69
dkf
Senior Member
 
dkf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim85IROC View Post
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.
Quote:
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.

Last edited by dkf; 02-20-2013 at 18:26..
dkf is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 18:52   #70
dregotglock
CHL Instructor
 
dregotglock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: DFW TX
Posts: 1,072
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?
__________________
Texas DPS Certified CHL Instructor
NRA Pistol Instructor
dregotglock is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 19:12   #71
DevilDocsGlocks
Senior Member
 
DevilDocsGlocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Camp Lejeune, NC
Posts: 149
Scum Bag Lawyers representing scum sucking clients.
DevilDocsGlocks is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 19:13   #72
DevilDocsGlocks
Senior Member
 
DevilDocsGlocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Camp Lejeune, NC
Posts: 149
So now, if your 3 year old burns down your house you can sue BIC ? People in upside down mortgages take note!
DevilDocsGlocks is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 22:31   #73
Shark1007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: orlando
Posts: 397
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.

Last edited by Shark1007; 02-20-2013 at 22:38..
Shark1007 is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 02:59   #74
MarcDW
MDW Guns
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Maine USA
Posts: 5,106
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!!
__________________
Glock Armorer - FFL/01/08/SOT
Importer of fine firearms
see
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
for current inventory
MarcDW is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 16:20   #75
jd11201
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6
Any updates 2 years later ?

Don't intend to necro, but no point in starting a brand new thread when this one contains all the background info.

I understood that July 2012 appeals court ruling was to send it back to trial court.

Unless I have particularly bad google-fu, I can't seem to find any info/updates after the appeals court ruling.

Maybe someone here knows something/anything about what happened when it was sent back to trial court?

Maybe it settled?!

jd11201 is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 17:44   #76
hunter 111
Senior Member
 
hunter 111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: TRAVEL -
Posts: 1,783
People ........no the lawyers that take these cases make me sick.
Scumbags
__________________
"The law isn't necessarily justice nor is justice necessarily lawful "
hunter 111 is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 17:48   #77
GeorgiaGlocker
Incirlik AB
 
GeorgiaGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,554
Sue Glock? He needs to sue his own stupid self.
__________________
The problem in our country today is that we spend more time on making sure we are politically correct instead of making sure we are biblically correct.
GeorgiaGlocker is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 17:52   #78
nraman
Senior Member
 
nraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfost11 View Post
I thought that was an elderly woman whose thin skin was more easily scalded off.
I stopped drinking McDonald's coffee after I got burned a couple of times.
Nobody serves coffee that hot
They are doing it on purpose.
__________________
Μολών λαβέ
nraman is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 17:57   #79
my_old_glock
Senior Member
 
my_old_glock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd11201 View Post
Don't intend to necro, but no point in starting a brand new thread when this one contains all the background info.

I understood that July 2012 appeals court ruling was to send it back to trial court.

Unless I have particularly bad google-fu, I can't seem to find any info/updates after the appeals court ruling.

Maybe someone here knows something/anything about what happened when it was sent back to trial court?

Maybe it settled?!

Do you know what court (city) the suit was filled?

You should be able to check the online public records for that court case and get the transcript or final decision.



.
my_old_glock is offline  
Old 07-03-2014, 18:19   #80
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by my_old_glock View Post
Do you know what court (city) the suit was filled?

You should be able to check the online public records for that court case and get the transcript or final decision.



.
It is filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The case number is apparently BC394135, but the county wants $4.75 to look up the records online and I don't care that much.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.
Bren is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:45.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 905
268 Members
637 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31