Legal News

Court Reinstates Lawsuit Against Glock Manufacturer
Download PDF

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.

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.

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.”

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!!


  1. john

    July 30, 2012 at 7:32 am

    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.

  2. Alan

    August 6, 2012 at 10:48 am

    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.

  3. Alice Valda

    August 9, 2012 at 12:22 am

    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!

  4. Tony

    January 4, 2013 at 9:40 pm

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

11 − two =


Most Popular


To Top