Negligent LAPD Officer sues Glock and LAPRAAC after being shot by his son

[DAL]

(07-09) 22:37 PDT Los Angeles, CA (AP) --

An off-duty Los Angeles police officer who was paralyzed after his young son accidentally shot him in 2006 filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the manufacturer of the gun involved in the accident.

Enrique Chavez of Anaheim was shot in the back by his 3-year-old son after the boy grabbed his father's Glock 21 — a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol — from the back seat of his pickup truck.

The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court, alleges that Glock Inc.'s gun was dangerous because its safety device was "non-existent or ineffective" at preventing an accidental shot.

Chavez, 35, is also suing the manufacturer of the gun's holster and the retail stores that sold him the gun and the holster. He bought the gun at the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club and purchased a holster made by Uncle Mike's and Bushnell Outdoor Products from Turner's Outdoorsman.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges.

The lawsuit alleges product liability, breach of warranty and loss of consortium, and seeks general, special and punitive damages, and attorneys fees.

Calls made after business hours to the defendants were not immediately returned Wednesday night.

[SoCalSheriff]

It amazes me that people can sue for their own stupidity. How did the child get the gun?
Why was it not stored safely?
Why did he not teach his children basic firearms saftey?

In CA, it is a crime if you store a firearm improperly and a child access the firearm and harms someone. I would charge this idiot.

The next time I get a speeding ticket, I think I'll sue Ford for making my Mustang with 300+ horsepower. They should know that much horsepower frequently results in high rates of speed and acceleration.

It's always someone elses fault, isn't it?

[The Dude]

What a jackass.

[Ceridwen]

The safety devices on his Glock worked exactly as designed. The weapon only fired when the trigger was pulled.

[DAL]

As I recall, he left the gun in a holster in the pocket behind the driver's seat, and his son was riding in back.

I do not know whether he was prosecuted, although he could have been. This seems to be a last-ditch effort to get some money. It's very sad, but it is his own fault.

[The Dude]

In CA, it is a crime if you store a firearm improperly and a child access the firearm and harms someone. I would charge this idiot.

+1

Section 12035(b)(2) imposes liability for the crime of “criminal storage of a firearm of the second degree” upon any person who keeps any loaded firearm:

[W]ithin any premises that are under his or her custody or control and he or she knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian and the child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to himself, herself, or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of section 417 [prohibiting the drawing or exhibiting of a firearm in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or unlawfully using a firearm in a fight or quarrel].

Any person in violation of section 12035(b)(2) is subject to a misdemeanor. Section 12035(d)(2).

[Kieth M.]

Yes, I too had my misgivings about this guy....within two days of the incident and getting more details.

Let's see, as I recall*, the kid was three and in the extended cab's back seat not in a child seat as required.

So we have a three year-old, unsecured as required, rummaging around and getting daddy's firearm.

Look, I get it, times are tough for a guy with zero pension and zero prosects for employment which would keep him in the lifestyle he'd become used to. I get it, but I don't like it.

Sounds to me like he wants someone else to pay him an able bodied police officer's wages to sit in that wheelchair. After all, it's easier to do that, than own up to one's own mistakes.
-------
(* I would love to be wrong, though!)

[DAL]

I do not think the statute applies, for two reasons.

First, it requires that the firearm be "within any premises." "Premises" generally means real property, not a vehicle.

Second, there is an exception if "[t]he firearm is carried on the person or within such a close proximity thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person."

Even if the statute applied, I would not be eager to prosecute. The officer is the one who was hurt. He was paralyzed and surely lost his job. I do not see any beneficial effect from prosecution.

P.S.: My recollection is the same as Keith M's.

[blackhorse]

It never -- absolutely NEVER ceases to amaze and astound ... When 40 + states have laws outlawing frivilous law suits, this one is appears to be heading to court. Of course, considering it's in Kommunist Kalifornia, then it's no wonder the x-LEO isn't the one in jail. I wonder if anyone has asked to see his green card, opps, guess that's not politically correct is it..... Oh well ask me if I give a S_ _ _.

[DAL]

Regardless of whether frivolous law suits are prohibited, people file them, especially when the damages are large.

[pulicords]

The guy was in violation of the law (IMO), in addition to a total lack of common sense. It's a pathetic situation that he brought about to himself. Unfortunately, some bottom dwelling personal injury attorney picked up the smell of blood in the water and now is after the "deep pockets." If he/she can convince a majority of jurors to "Send a message, no matter how small an award", we'll end up paying for this guy's stupid mistake through increased prices of firearms, holsters, everything else. Chavez may or may not get all the money he's expecting, but the lawyer will.

It's disgusting and classic example of the typical left coast thought process, that instigates these kind of lawsuits.

[blackhorse]

The whole point of the law is that when a obvious frivolous law suit is filed, the courts have an obligation to not only dismiss it but to hold the filer financially obligated for all the fees associated with the filing, and dismissal with a penatly for filing a frivolous law suit to begin with. Only when we as a nation say enough, we won't allow your stupidity to take away the revenue of a honest business or a lawabiding citizens hard earned money will we get back to being the nation we are capable of being. The liberals and special interests have allowed these to continue even in the defiance of the will of the people (based on our laws). In every case where a lawsuit against a weapons manufacturing has been allowed has been in a liberal democrate controlled area, like Kalifornia or New York.

[sap123]

Ah, good old California.

This won't go well for the officer. It's pretty much a slam dunk for the defendants.

[Monkeybomb]

I just hope the loser in this one has to pay the others legal expenses. This might keep some of these frivolous lawsuits down...................................

[familymanbball]

Some people are just plain idiots!

[Kieth M.]

I just hope the loser in this one has to pay the others legal expenses. This might keep some of these frivolous lawsuits down...................................

Nope, dear old California has yet to adopt the "loser pays" system.

My guess is, the companies/organizations involved may just pay him a smaller amount to make him go away.

[DAL]

Nope, dear old California has yet to adopt the "loser pays" system.

My guess is, the companies/organizations involved may just pay him a smaller amount to make him go away.

There are provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure that allow the judge to require the plaintiff to pay the defendant's attorney fews when the suit is clearly frivolous. That rarely happens.

California also has full comparative fault, which means that a plaintiff who is 99% at fault can recover 1% of his damages.

The reason I think this is sad is that the ex-officer has a wife and child to support.

[pulicords]

I hate to think like an attorney but, I'd be more inclined to view the wife as a "victim" if she'd dump this moron (husband), then sue him and the department (for negligent training and retention) leading to the injury and loss of income.

[NORCOCOP]

He being a properly educated gun owner ie police officer choose to buy a weapon with limited safties, a holster with out retention, and failed to properly secured the weapon in his vehicle or on his person. No matter how tragic the loss of his mobility, his has obvioulsy allowed his circumstances to cloud his God given good judgement, and responsibilty to accept the responsibility for HIS actions and choices.

My department has a stringent policy for proper storage of weapons not on your person, for just this reason it is overly restrictive, but now I see why.

[stormz5192]

Glock has NEVER lost a case to date. I don't think this one will change things.

[TomfromIL]

(07-09) 22:37 PDT Los Angeles, CA (AP) --

.....
The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges.
.....

.

Shouldn't that read 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger ALWAYS results in a discharge?!

[DAL]

Shouldn't that read 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger ALWAYS results in a discharge?!

I am quoting the article, but I think what it means is that because the trigger pull is only 5.5 pounds, accidental discharges are more frequent than with other firearms.

[LA DEP]

I am quoting the article, but I think what it means is that because the trigger pull is only 5.5 pounds, accidental discharges are more frequent than with other firearms.

Pretty much no such thing as an 'accidental discharge' with a Glock, only 'negligent discharges' .....it only goes 'bang' if you pull the trigger.....which doesnt happen all by itself....

[DAL]

Pretty much no such thing as an 'accidental discharge' with a Glock, only 'negligent discharges' .....it only goes 'bang' if you pull the trigger.....which doesnt happen all by itself....

That depends on which definition of accidental is used. Here is one from Merriam Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged):

2 : b : happening or ensuing without design, intent, or obvious motivation or through inattention or carelessness <accidental collision> <accidental shooting> <accidental loss>.

[LA DEP]

That depends on which definition of accidental is used. Here is one from Merriam Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged):

2 : b : happening or ensuing without design, intent, or obvious motivation or through inattention or carelessness <accidental collision> <accidental shooting> <accidental loss>.

True....but I'm using the 'gun safety' version of accidental.....got it beaten into me at a very young age that there is no such thing as an AD.....just ND....

as for the original post, I hope he doesnt get a dime......