Posted on 06/11/2008 12:58:56 PM PDT by davidosborne
Taser International Inc. was deemed partially responsible for the 2005 death of a Northern California man, resulting in a damage award of more than $6.2 million. The verdict, announced June 6, represents the first case lost by Scottsdale-based Taser (Nasdaq:TASR).
The jury in the U.S. District Court case found Taser 15 percent responsible in the death of Robert C. Heston, while Heston himself was 85 percent responsible.
Heston was struck three times by Salinas, Calif., police officers using a Taser stun gun, and the lawsuit argued that the shocks combined with the fact he was intoxicated with methamphetamine caused his death.
Taser officials said they were disappointed with the outcome and may file an appeal or a motion for a new trial.
The company's stock had dropped about 12 percent since its close Friday before the announcement. It closed at $6.90 on Friday and rested at $6.03 per share by Tuesday morning.
Passing it on... my apoligies for the previous ping to a thread which was pulled because it was perceived as a “stock tip” —— I am interested in a discussion on this matter if anyone who posted to the other thread is interested..
David
Ridiculous.
They tazed a meth-head drug freak and he died and it goes to this crap? They should give the company a reward.
Take away the tazer, and the cops only have a gun.
For meth-heads like this freak, it’s a better solution, but the company who produces a device which is less deadly than a firearm should not be sued.
Read the article at the Phoenix Business Journal and it didn’t mention what the perp was doing that caused the the police to “taze” him. Does anyone have the details ???
I agree my FRiend..
well the court did rule that the perp was 85% responsible for his death and the TASR was 15% responsbile.. I guess if the officer shot the guy than the GUN would be 15% responsible — what a ridiculous ruling.. IMHO.. I am sure TASR will win this on appeal..
BTTT
By sticking the ugly looking URL out there for all to see just causes an unnecessary irritation. < /lecture>
note taken my FRiend.. consider myself schooled :)
David
Therefore “Phoenix Business Journal” would go in the Source box and there would no reason to type it up again. Any readers who want to go to that source, merely clicks on “Phoenix Business Journal” in the red.
I undetstand the concept.. I usually just double post the link to expidite the posting process.. I don’t see the big deal.. but I understand how some would think it looks “amatureish”.. I got it... I got it.. :)
David
Just a side issue, but 15% responsible = $6.2 million?
I seriously doubt that this meth addict can be shown to have been worth $41,333,333.
If I were Taser lawyers, I’d certainly suggest an appeal. Absent any showing that the device malfunctioned (which is not apparent from the article), there is no way Taser should be liable. If the device was used incorrectly the officer, that is hardly Taser’s fault.
Does anyone have further information on why Taser was even allowed to be sued in the first place? Were there allegations of “unfit for intended purpose.”
LOL.. uhh loss of potential earning potential???
I don't get it... how much does this dude value his life by taking drugs?
This is why a gun is better than a Taser. If you are in harms way, don’t leave doubt. If someone is charging you with a Bowie knife, shoot them and you are justified, but Taser them and they die and you get sued.
Actually from a LEO standpoint the TASR is very effective in that it can be depolyed quickly without having to wait for the situation to escalate to the point where DEADLY force is needed.....
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.