Glock settles lawsuit

[Libertarian01]

Glock is just facing the reality of the situation.

First, a lawsuit would be long, expensive, AND potentially bad publicity. So even if they win the case they could lose automatically on multiple other fronts.

Second, win or lose, they could face loss of contracts to LE agencies in the future. They look "better" to LE bureaucrats this way.

Third, they could get in front of even a jury, not even anti-gun, and the jury could feel sorry for this "fallen hero" who's son is now psychologically traumatized for life, the "hero" is damaged for life, but neither of them has any money. Glock could afford to cough up a few million dollars and not be damaged. So Glock would fear the jury seeing them as a bank account to cover the good guys damages without being harmed. They (the jury) would feel good about helping a police officer while not really hurting Glock.

IF Glock tried to counter sue for publicity damages, even then could win legally but lose mightily in the court of public opinion and definitely risk future LE contracts.

Overall a very y position to be in. So, settle and move on. In some ways this was a "lose / lose" situation for Glock and they just chose the least damaging way out.

My .

Regards,

Doug

 

[TECKS]

His 3 year old was able to get a hold of his weapon, then shoot him in the back and then he gets paid?? He should be in jail for reckless endangerment, not getting a settlement because his gun worked. He argues the gun was negligently designed? An XD or 1911 would have shot him just the same.

 

[Hornett]

The former officer alleged the gun and hip holster were negligently designed without a grip safety and that it required only minimal pressure to discharge.

“In fact, the trigger energy on the Glock is so low that it was easier to pull the trigger on the Glock than on cheap, plastic toy guns ordered off the Internet,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys stated in their court papers.
Defense attorneys countered that Chavez admitted he forgot the gun was in the back seat when he put his son in the truck, but not in a car seat as required by law. He also did not disassemble it so it would be inoperable, they said.

There is so much FAIL in those 3 paragraphs, that it makes my head hurt.
Trigger Energy?
That sounds soooo technical that I KNOW it was made up.

And, call Kurt, I believe that disassembling and reassembling a pistol every time you get in and out of the car is tantamount to coonfingering.
How was he supposed to disassemble it? He forgot he even put it back there.

 

[Expat]

I'll bet Glock did a risk analysis of the potential effect on their sales to police departments if they contested the suit and decided (whether right or wrong) that it was in their best interest to settle.

You could get rich suing every knife maker that caused you to cut yourself.

 

[in625shooter]

Glock is just facing the reality of the situation.

First, a lawsuit would be long, expensive, AND potentially bad publicity. So even if they win the case they could lose automatically on multiple other fronts.

Second, win or lose, they could face loss of contracts to LE agencies in the future. They look "better" to LE bureaucrats this way.

Third, they could get in front of even a jury, not even anti-gun, and the jury could feel sorry for this "fallen hero" who's son is now psychologically traumatized for life, the "hero" is damaged for life, but neither of them has any money. Glock could afford to cough up a few million dollars and not be damaged. So Glock would fear the jury seeing them as a bank account to cover the good guys damages without being harmed. They (the jury) would feel good about helping a police officer while not really hurting Glock.

IF Glock tried to counter sue for publicity damages, even then could win legally but lose mightily in the court of public opinion and definitely risk future LE contracts.

Overall a very y position to be in. So, settle and move on. In some ways this was a "lose / lose" situation for Glock and they just chose the least damaging way out.

My .

Regards,

Doug

Ivcan see why a company would just pay however respectfully disagree with you on the fear of Glock of being shunned by LE.

My case in point on that is Glock is the same company that when there was a problem with said departments (or civilians by that matter) NEVER have a recall but come out with a "Product Upgrade".

I feel they did it simply because this happened in the state of Cali and their less than friendly AG and approved firearms ETETCC.

 

[Indycar:v1.1]

While I agree that this example is user caused, Glock as a Corp have NEVER let a lawsuit go to trial. They have all been settled out of court confidentially.

I know of at least 3 court cases that Glock would have been found libel, but they settled before it went to court.

 

[DRob]

The incompetent but unfortunate LAPD officer probably had attorneys tripping over each other to visit him in the hospital. Is there an attorney walking the face of the earth who doesn't know the following?

(from the article)............

"Sometimes, it’s simply more cost-effective for companies to settle a civil lawsuit with a payoff than it is to pay the crushing legal costs of defending yourself in court. It’s sad that being in the right is utterly irrelevant, but that’s simply the way our sue-happy civil court system in this Republic is regretfully designed to operate."

 

[Alamo]

While I agree that this example is user caused, Glock as a Corp have NEVER let a lawsuit go to trial. They have all been settled out of court confidentially.
...

They have been to court at least once, Ryan v Hughes-Ortiz (and Hughes) in Massachusetts. Hughes-Ortiz was a representative for Glock. A deceased burglar recently out of prison burgled two handguns, unknown to the owner of the handguns. When the burglar's sister, who was trying to help him out after his release from prison, found out she made him return the guns. Again unknown to the handgun owner he tried to put the guns back where he found them. One was a loaded Glock 17 that apparently discharged when put back into its Glock plastic case and severed his femoral artery. He bled to death in the gun owner's house. The gunowner and Glock were sued for causing the burglar's death.

The trial court granted summary motions for dismissal because in the case of the gun owner, the decedant was committing a crime against him at the time, and in the case of Glock , the PLCAA. The plaintiff appealed, and the Massachusetts appeals court ruled the trial court summary judgments were correct.

ETA: As a matter of fact, the PLCAA was born out of an attempt to sue Glock and others over criminal misuse of its guns. Ileto v Glock was the case where some white supremacist nut shot up a Jewish center in California and some victims and relatives of victims sued everyone who had anything (e.g. seller, distributor, manufacturer) to do with the gun, on the notion that they were knowingly selling more guns than the "legitimate" market could bear, thus they knew that they were supplying criminals as well. The case was initially dismissed in California courts, but the 9th Circuit reinstated it on an appeal, ruling there might be a valid nuisance claim. Due to this and similar cases Congress got busy and passed the PLCAA. The 9th reconsidered the case and dismissed it, and the SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal.

So that's at least twice Glock has gone to court. I suspect there are more.

ETA2: And that California ex-officer's claims are appalling.

 

[rhino]

If the amount of work (i.e. energy) required to press a Glock trigger is really an issue, then we'd better make it a lot harder to turn an ignition key, move a steering wheel, or step on a gas pedal so that kids can't use a car.

 

[HoughMade]

So the thought here is that there's no way a jury would find against Glock? (I'm not so sure California vs. Indiana makes much of a difference)

...and this experience about what civil juries would do comes from where now?

 

[rhino]

So the thought here is that there's no way a jury would find against Glock? (I'm not so sure California vs. Indiana makes much of a difference)

...and this experience about what civil juries would do comes from where now?

You didn't get that from me! I'm not surprised by anything that happens with a jury. Those are often easily manipulated people comprising a captive audience for professional manipulators. Best manipulator wins!

 

[HoughMade]

You didn't get that from me!...

I know. I was referring to the thoughts expressed in several earlier posts...by people who feel very free to spend Glock's money and perhaps don't realize that the precedent created by a settlement, to the extent there is any, isn't nearly as harmful as the precedent created by a jury verdict and possible appeals.

 

[seagullplayer]

If the kid had shot himself, the dad would have been facing probable jail time.

If the kid had shot someone else the dad would have been facing damages, and probable jail time.

But the kid shots his dad and the dad gets a wheel chair and a pay check.

Things don't seem to add up. Maybe there is more to it, maybe Glock was just cutting its losses.

I don't want a wheelchair or a pay check. Moral here; do better securing your firearm and your kids.