Free Market Evaluation - Send us your resume and we will give you free feedback
LinkedIn Must Pay $13M for Annoying People
LinkedIn Must Pay $13M for Annoying People
American Apparel Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
American Apparel Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Two Former Lawyers Added to Forbes 400 List
Two Former Lawyers Added to Forbes 400 List
Peeple: The App No One Was Waiting For
Peeple: The App No One Was Waiting For
Legal Job Listings
Download PDF

Court Reinstates Lawsuit Against Glock Manufacturer View Count: 170

The lawsuit filed by a retired paralyzed Los Angeles police officer has been reinstated by a California appeals court. The lawsuit was for product liability and it was filed against the gun manufacturing company known as Glock. The officer, Enrique Chavez, became paralyzed when he was accidentally shot by his three-year-old son with his service pistol.


 job title, keywords


 city, state, zip

Chavez claims in the lawsuit that the gun, a .45-caliber Glock 21 pistol, does not have proper safety guards against accidental discharge. There is no grip safety on the Glock, which is usually attached to a pistol grip that has to be activated prior to firing the gun. The lawsuit was originally dismissed two years ago by a judge in Los Angeles. When the lawsuit was dismissed, the judge said that a review conducted by the Police Department discovered that the Glock’s design outdid the possible risks.

On Tuesday, the 2nd District Court of Appeals decided to reinstate the lawsuit. The court said that a jury would be able to conclude that a safety strong enough on the Glock would have been able to stop the grasp of a child from firing the gun, therefore limiting the risk of an accidental shooting.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

The lawyer representing the Glock manufacturer, Christopher Renzulli, said, “Guns are not designed or manufactured for children.” Renzulli said he would place the blame on Chavez, who, “left a loaded firearm within the reach of his young son.”

Court Reinstates Lawsuit Against Glock Manufacturer by

  • john

    This guys is an idiot. Anybody who leaves a loaded weapon where a child can reach it deserves to be shot by his own gun. Then again, anybody who owns a gun (other than an active duty policy officer or military person) deserves whatever happens to him/her from his/her own gun.

  • Alan

    Chavez, at the time of the shooting, WAS a regular sworn fulltime police officer. Thus, by your analysis, he does not deserve the fate which has befallen him.

    The world has known since 1911 that a grip safety greatly reduces the risk of accidental discharge. Glock should be responsible for the damages of their idiotic decisions.

  • Alice Valda

    A police officer should be responsible enough to know his weapon and to keep it safe. Allowing a 3 year old access to it is negligence on his part! Did he not know the workings of his own gun and thought it was safe for the 3 year old?

    Also John, those that don’t responsibility for their own defense far more often become victims than those that have guns in their homes!

  • Tony

    Does not California require trigger locks? Why was it not installed with children around?

Tagged: , , ,

Posted by on July 26, 2012. Filed under Business News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.



Related Posts: