Posted on 05/12/2016 2:14:26 PM PDT by PROCON
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.
We’re seeing that play out in California right now, as Glock is settling a case with a former LAPD officer who sued Glock for a negligent discharge shooting that left him paralyzed.
Attorneys for a gun manufacturer and a retired LAPD officer who was paralyzed when his 3-year-old son accidentally fired the officer’s handgun while riding in the family truck told a judge Wednesday a settlement was reached in the ex-lawman’s lawsuit.
The announcement came as Los Angeles Superior Court Judge J. Stephen Czuleger was about to begin the process of selecting a jury for trial of the lawsuit brought in July 2008 by then-Officer Enrique Herrera Chavez and his wife, Leonora Aduna Chavez, against Glock Inc. and the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club.
No settlement terms were divulged.
Chavez, now 45, was off duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue in Anaheim. The former Marine, who joined the LAPD in 1996, was on his way to drop off his son, Collin, with a family member before testifying in a court case.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
Glock would have likely crushed him in court if they’d gone to trial, but they clearly did the math and determined that the cost of defending themselves with attorneys and expert testimony was more than the settlement the Chavez family was willing to accept.
It’s a damn shame that former officer Chavez is paralyzed, but it infuriates me that he attempts to blame everyone else for his injuries.
Not much sympathy for Mr. Chavez in the comments section.
BTW, my Glock has never negligently misfired.
Glock just set a very dangerous precedent.
This clown Chavez belongs in PRISON, His Negligent and reckless endangerment involving a firearm, in which a CHILD gained access to and Almost KILLED A POLICE OFFICER, PARALYZING him instead is the EXACT TYPE OF CASE these Gun Storage Restrictions are in place to begin with.
If it was MY GUN that MY CHILD got a hold of and SHOT A COP, WOULD I BE PROSECUTED>???
Now they are going to have to put a warning on the box that says “not for children under 3”.
If I don’t lock my car and someone gets in and runs me over with it, is Honda to blame?
No, a settlement sets no precedent. The anti-gunners get to put a small notch in their bedpost, but legally it has no effect.
If the case had gone to trial and the jury had awarded the plaintiff damages, THAT would have set a precedent that could be cited.
California has a crime called “criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree” punishable by up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine. You commit this crime when you leave a loaded gun in a place you know, or should know a child will have access to it, and the child injures himself or someone else.
I wonder if officer Chavez was charged?
I’m sure the DA considered that prosecution option, but I suppose lifelong paralysis is punishment enough.
Perhaps a 50 pound trigger pull ?
This is what NYC seems to consider an answer.
Umm, no, that's not how the courts were designed, and it is WELL beyond time for Congress to address these issues.
“Legally, ethically, and morally, this was 100% a failure of Chavez to secure his child and his weapon.”
Exactly true. Glock bears no responsibility for any of this.
Sadly, a jury would have sympathized with the man and his injury, even if it was self-inflicted. And then Glock would have a precedent on the books that the anti-gunners would have RUN with: have a gun accident, sue the gun maker and win. I bet Glock settled just to keep such a precedent from entering case law.
Operative phrase: “sue-happy civil court system in this Republic”.
It should have never gone to a court. Never.
The case never made it to court.
Apparently it did; the judge was about ready to select a jury, when he was told of the settlement. It should have been pre-screened and dismissed.
Correct, I guess we both meant the same thing.
I absolutely hate the out of court settlements to save a buck or two....that inspires others to follow the same path. Notice how Donald Trump doesn’t do that....if you are right, prove it and LOSER pays certainly should be a consideration.
<(;^O)
Glock needs to be put out of business for cow-towing. This sets a bad precedent. BOYCOTT NOW !!!
Glock saved money by settling.
And if it had gone to a jury trial, even though the cop was obviously at fault, a sympathetic, brain-dead jury could of awarded him damages and THEN you have a precedent and the slick lawyers licking their chops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.