In a recent personal injury case involving a police officer and the Glock gun manufacturer, the policeman is seeking $75,000 in damages after his firearm discharged unexpectedly – shooting the man in the foot.

The Circumstances of the Glock Personal Injury Case

The jury trial will start Aug. 21, 2017, in a federal court in Helena, Arkansas, the order says. Final arguments and discovery exhibits are due in the beginning months of the year.

The plaintiff in the case, Larry Jones, of Cherry Valley, Arkansas, was injured when his Glock 19C pistol discharged unexpectedly at the shooting range in June 2013, the lawsuit says. At the time he was trying to attach a tactical light.

According to the complaint, the pistol had not been modified or changed since he bought it in December 2000. The lawsuit alleges Glock sold the pistol “in a defective condition which rendered (it) unreasonably dangerous.”

The Glock pistol’s lack of a manual safety and other similar features are the subject of what the lawsuit characterizes as defects that led to the injury. Also, Glock did not give “a reasonable and adequate warning of dangers inherent and/or reasonably foreseeable in the use” of the pistol, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, Jones injured his left foot and has experienced pain and suffering since the incident. In response, Glock denied all allegations presented in the complaint. The case was originally filed in a Arkansas state court, but was transferred to a federal civil court in May.

Why is Glock Such a Popular Manufacturer for Gun Owners?

What About PLCAA Which Prevents Gun Makers?

While the news media would have you believe that federal law (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) makes it impossible to sue gun manufacturers, this is not the case. The law only protects gun manufacturers from being frivolously sued when firearms are used in a crime. There are no protections for gun manufacturers when they are alleged to have sold a defective product. This lawsuit is going forward because it claims that the gun was sold in a defective condition and that Glock failed to give “a reasonable and adequate warning of dangers inherent and/or reasonably foreseeable in the use.”

Larry Jones would not have been shot had he done any of the following:

  • Unloaded his firearm before trying to add his light.
  • Kept the gun pointed in a safe direction.
  • Kept his finger off of the trigger.

The NRA Fundamental Rules for Gun Safety State:

Law Guy Blog - Gun Safety Infographic
Source: everydaynodaysoff.com

In case you’re wondering where such rules are made, you guessed it… the National Rifle Association of course!

  1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
  2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
  3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

YOU BROKE EVERY RULE.

CASE DISMISSED!

Conclusion

Assuming that Larry was using proper gun safety techniques while handling his weapon, the question then lies in whether or not Glock sold a defective weapon. If in fact the gun maker did sell a weapon with a defect, Larry should be entitled to compensation in the form of lost wages, medical bills, and pain and suffering. This is an interesting lawsuit to say the least and we’ll be keeping an eye on it, so check back soon.

If you have a personal injury case and are unsure of your options, click here to speak with a legal professional today.

Advertisements