Ex LAPD officer gets shot by own weapon. Sues Glock

[syciprider]

What a butthole

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/g...79-chavez-shot

A retired Los Angeles police officer paralyzed when his 3-year-old son fired his father's handgun while riding in the family pickup in Anaheim two years ago filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the gun's manufacturer.

Enrique Chavez, 37, of Anaheim, was off-duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. His son got a hold of his father's .45-caliber weapon while sitting in the back seat and shot him in the back, according to police reports. The son was not restrained in a safety seat.

The lawsuit alleges that Glock Inc.'s gun was dangerous because its safety device was "nonexistent or ineffective" at preventing an accidental shot.

Chavez, a 10-year veteran of the LAPD, is also suing the manufacturer of the gun holster and the retail stores that sold him the gun and 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 attorney fees.

A Glock spokesperson declined to comment, saying that the company has not yet seen or heard of the complaint.

Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.

For those of you who are not familiar with a Glock, it is its simplicity that is its selling point. It works much like a revolver. Point, click. The safeties are internal while a small lever on the trigger prevents its movement until deliberately pressed. This simplicity is one of the reasons for its worldwide appeal to law enforcement folks who don't want to manipulate external switches and levers on their gun when making high stress shots.
The gun in this story worked exactly as designed.

The cop here is actually guilty of several crimes himself.
-Child unrestrained in a vehicle
-Allowing an unsupervised minor access to a gun
-Endangering the child in the process.

[Joe Gress]

Too bad the kid miss...


Nevermind.

[Mark Latimour]

Here's a question for those closer to the action on these. Is it really the man suing, or is it his medical insurer under rights of subrogation suing on his behalf?

I can imagine that if an accident means that the medical insurer has too pay a massive amount of costs for his ongoing medical care for the rest of its life, it might want to exercise its rights of subrogation to sue anyone it can to try and recover some of its loss. So, what do you think. In these sort of cases is it possible that its not actual the "victim" suing, but their underlying medical insurer who is trying to offset the high costs of providing ongoing medical care in the US? (which, of course, is self perpetuating circle).

[IanStephenson]

Originally Posted by syciprider

Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.

Darwin awards!!!

(though having a son makes him ineligible)

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

Here's a question for those closer to the action on these. Is it really the man suing, or is it his medical insurer under rights of subrogation suing on his behalf?

I can imagine that if an accident means that the medical insurer has too pay a massive amount of costs for his ongoing medical care for the rest of its life, it might want to exercise its rights of subrogation to sue anyone it can to try and recover some of its loss. So, what do you think. In these sort of cases is it possible that its not actual the "victim" suing, but their underlying medical insurer who is trying to offset the high costs of providing ongoing medical care in the US? (which, of course, is self perpetuating circle).

I don't know how these things work in the US or elsewhere for that matter, but I would have thought his medical insurers could get out of this on the grounds that the injury was caused by his own negligence. How would that go?

[bwv1013]

i feel bad for the guy. being paralyzed from the waist down is VERY tragic. i hope to never know the agony he goes through...

i do, however, happen to own a glock .45 and i have yet to have a problem with it. there is no external safety or hammer to be found, yet i have found it to be perfectly safe because i do not leave it loaded, much less in the care of a 3 year old. i won't say he deserved what he got, i am sad for him. i'll just say it could have been much worse...

[Armueller2001]

I wonder if the state is going to press charges for HIS negligence... Maybe he can sue the automotive manufacturer for not having bullet-proof seats. Or he can sue the ammunition manufacturer for producing paralyzing bullets...

[bwv1013]

interesting point, and i LOVE your sig!

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by IanStephenson

Darwin awards!!!

(though having a son makes him ineligible)

I think he may actually be eligible if the injury prevents him having further offspring, hence limiting his negative effect on gene pool quality to that done before the accident. I'd need to check out the rules more thoroughly to be sure, but I don't think that the simple fact that someone has already had a kid means they can never qualify for an award.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by bassybill

I don't know how these things work in the US or elsewhere for that matter, but I would have thought his medical insurers could get out of this on the grounds that the injury was caused by his own negligence. How would that go?

Its unlikely that they would be able to get out of this for mere negligence. It would need to be gross negligence, if I remember correctly, which it does not sound like based on the information I know. In most cases, the only exclusion is self inflicted harm and particular excluded activities. I doubt this bizarre circumstance is one of the particuarl exclusions!

[moomoocajoo]

He's probably doing it to offset the cost of insurance/medical bills.

[peterbright]

The charge is too stupid to be a human being. The verdict is guilty.

[FL Knifemaker]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

Its unlikely that they would be able to get out of this for mere negligence. It would need to be gross negligence, if I remember correctly, which it does not sound like based on the information I know. In most cases, the only exclusion is self inflicted harm and particular excluded activities. I doubt this bizarre circumstance is one of the particuarl exclusions!

Good Questions............

As far as the gun itself it worked just how it was designed to work. Being a cop, he was fully aware of this. Glocks don't just go off by themselves

[snugbear]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

Here's a question for those closer to the action on these. Is it really the man suing, or is it his medical insurer under rights of subrogation suing on his behalf?

I can imagine that if an accident means that the medical insurer has too pay a massive amount of costs for his ongoing medical care for the rest of its life, it might want to exercise its rights of subrogation to sue anyone it can to try and recover some of its loss. So, what do you think. In these sort of cases is it possible that its not actual the "victim" suing, but their underlying medical insurer who is trying to offset the high costs of providing ongoing medical care in the US? (which, of course, is self perpetuating circle).

Technically speaking, he is solely at fault for the incident at hand, since it was a result of his own negligence.... thus through subrogation, he is at fault, and responsible to reimburse the medical expenses.... Also, federal law prevents lawsuits such as these. The plantiff can claim defective safety, which Glock, and the other named defendants could claim he should have realized there was a defect through what he is required to do by law, and have the weapon serviced and maintained, thus by his failure to literally DO HIS JOB, once again... his own personal negligence.... if he claims the holster was defective... why was he using it???? Once again.... his own negligence. As a police officer he has the LEGAL responsibility to ensure his equipment is in tip top shape. Federal law clearly states that a manufacturer of a firearm cannot be sued for someone's own negligence... which this case clearly is. Also, this weapon appears on Californias roster of approved handguns, and has for many years. Now nowhere in the investigation of this incident was the weapon found defective.... but now suddenly it is... but CA (believe me they are gun nazis there... lived there most of my life) says it is safe.... thus, that kinda kills the case.... again.

IMO this case is a insult to the legal system, and furthermore to the fact that someone who is as stupid as this guy, could actually become a sworn officer whom has the duty to uphold the very law he disregards, but also a swipe at the very laws of CA which clearly states civil suits cannot be brought upon others while in commision of a felony... which although he was not charged with any (as far as I know), the actual incident report clearly stated that he committed AT LEAST 2 seperate felonies, and a misdemeanor, and possibly 3 felonies even.

[snugbear]

Originally Posted by bassybill

I don't know how these things work in the US or elsewhere for that matter, but I would have thought his medical insurers could get out of this on the grounds that the injury was caused by his own negligence. How would that go?

In our country (The US) the insurance companies would only be required to cover bare minimum life saving treatment, and nothing else, all follow up care, and the like, would be his sole responsibility. Essentially they should only be liable to cover the Ambulance and emergency room visit, and nothing else..... That being said one also has to realize that this cop happened to be in a dept. just over the LA county border, thus by some weird state law they take jurisdiction so it is in the hands of LA county... if it were in OC, he would have at least been charged with unsafe storage and child endangerment.... cause corona don't f*&k around with stuff like this.

[Matt Till]

Guns don't kill people... 3 year old son's cripple people... or something.

I think the moron deserves to be crippled. Aside from the fact that he is suing because he's stupid: He let a loaded gun get into his 3 year old son's hands!! That kid could have shot anyone... himself included.

It's like who shot Mr. Burns all over again!

[Jerose]

Hit 'em with a Glock, put 'em in a coma. Now what that boy got? Glaucoma.

[CrashClint]

The whole situation is sad. Clearly the guy was negligent by not keeping his side arm secured, but my heart goes out to the child. The poor kid has to go through life knowing that he shot his father. In my opinion, the child is the victim of his father's negligence.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Next thing he will be blaming computer games, all that point and click action!

It is his own fault, he should have had the weapon safely secured away from where his child could get it.

[FL Knifemaker]

Originally Posted by Jerose

Hit 'em with a Glock, put 'em in a coma. Now what that boy got? Glaucoma.

GAWD!!