In some of the most ridiculous news of the day, California's Second District Court of Appeal ruled a paralyzed Los Angeles police officer -- shot by his own three-year old son -- could continue his lawsuit against gun manufacturer Glock.
Enrique Chavez, plantiff and paralyzed cop, claimed the gun had inadequate safety provisions. Chavez's case was dismissed two years ago after failing to show enough evidence of the possible features the gun could have included to increase the safety.
On July 11, 2006, the 41-year-old Chavez was off-duty when his three-year-old son Collin found the fully loaded Glock 21 handgun in the back seat and shot Chavez in the back, paralyzing him from the waist down.
Chavez does have some things to work with in the case, citing the gun manufacturer should have anticipated inappropriate and unsafe use of the hangun.
However, in this case, it would seem the details of the case are in the gun manufacturer's favor. In legal terms Chavez is contributorily negligent, or through his own negligence contributed to the harm he suffered, in the point of view that he should have recognized the inherent risks of keeping a fully loaded gun in his car while his infant son was present, and then not keeping it out of plain sight. To add fuel to the fire, Chavez forgot where he last put the gun and did not strap his son into his car seat, allowing him to move around the backseat freely.
This suit should not exist at all, as Chavez's negligence outweighs every other detail in the case. Sure, the gun may have not been the safest it couldn't have been, but Chavez himself should have thought about this in advance.
As a 10-year veteran of the LAPD there is no way Chavez wasn't aware or briefed on the innerworkings of the gun before this incident happened. Chavez must have shot the gun in some setting, whether it be in the shooting range, practice field, or on patrol in the streets.
Yet Chavez never voiced any noticeable concerns with the gun in question before being shot, so apparently the light trigger and safety grip weren't a problem to him before he was hurt by the gun. Only when he was paralyzed from the waist down as a result of the gun did the lacking safety provisions on the glock come in question. It seems Chavez is less concerned about Glock changing the gun's features than he is about receiving money due to his troubles.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am empathetic towards Chavez and his situation. This is an accident that should have never happened, but Chavez is responding in the wrong way by suing the company.
Chavez might as well sue the company which produced his son's car seat for not automatically buckling his son into the car seat. But wait, car seats don't do that, just as negligence shouldn't be mixed with guns.