Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Glock settles

so revolvers have none either.

We NEVER used safeties in 4H. We taught safe handling.

And if folks think a kid can't flip a safety off they are nuts. The safeties on my 1911s take much less pressure than a glock trigger.

The issue here isn't a glock its stupidity. Like it normally is.

The world would be a better place if all guns had 'no' safeties.

Stock,around 5.5 lbs.

Settling open the wallet for the next dumbass that comes along. Glock must have felt that they would lose and settled. I wish companies would invest in fighting. When they win, that puts up a big red flag to lawyers and their clients to think twice.

You fight when you are right, no matter the cost.

You never set the precedent if you can avoid it.

But then the idiots always think its "free" money.

All it does is make the cost of the next glock go up...

All because someone was stupid.

Chavez should have been charged with criminal negligence or some such at the least....

Standard is approx 5.5

I can vouch for that. Our solution was to identify those with shaky handgun "ethics" and undergo remedial training. Not everyone in LE has a strong background with firearms.
We never "dumbed down" the group but elevated those who needed it. That developed confidence and good "muscle memory".

Yup. Happens every day.

If the kid had shot himself, the dad would have been facing probable jail time.

If the kid had shot someone else the dad would have been facing damages, and probable jail time.

But the kid shots his dad and the dad gets a wheel chair and a pay check.

Things don't seem to add up. Maybe there is more to it, maybe Glock was just cutting its losses.

I don't want a wheelchair or a pay check. Moral here; do better securing your firearm and your kids.

yes, cutting losses up front. But NOW the losses on the downstream side are going to look like a flood.

Just like Remington and the, IMHO, no issue trigger, trigger issue...

I'd take every last one of those old Rem triggers... but I digress

This has also been my experience...also that every single one of them I have met thinks they know everything.

Some do...most don't.

[/quote]
Settling open the wallet for the next dumbass that comes along. Glock must have felt that they would lose and settled. I wish companies would invest in fighting. When they win, that puts up a big red flag to lawyers and their clients to think twice. [/quote]

Settling is the lesser of two evils in this case and does more to prevent future suits than winning at trial would. the story about Red Adair that someone posted above is a way different situation than a products liability case. Plaintiff lawyers with the money to bring this usually aren't dissuaded by others having lost in the past. They're usually arrogant enough to think they will win because they're better trial lawyers than the guys who have lost.

With an isolated instance like a well blow out its worth going to trial. But a products liability defendant is going to do everything they can to prevent a trial record from being created if they can do it in a cost effective manner. Glock had already had the case dismissed which was partially reversed by the appellate courts. This case looks pretty winnable by Glock due to plaintiff's negligence but there are two problems with proceeding to trial.

First, it was a pretty liberal venue where most jurors know little or nothing about guns other than they are "dangerous". so a slight chance existed that a liability verdict would go against Glock. This (if upheld on appeal and the appellate court had already indicated which way it was leaning) opens the door to an estoppel claim where that model Glock (and all similar glocks) would have legally been determined to be defective. Every plaintiff in every glock case after that wouldn't have to show that the design was defective (i.e. that there was a safer alternative) but only that they suffered an injury caused by a Glock. This is a manufacturer's nightmare and usually results in an automatic recall. Anyone remember the Remington Mohawk 600? Recalled after Joe Jamail hit them in a single case in Austin where a boy had a discharge while pointing the gun at his father. This case settled but i would bet the plaintiff's negligence drug down the amount by a fair bit.

Second, they don't want to give plaintiff attorney's the benefit of thousands of pages of their engineer's and executives testimony. Most of the big mass torts such as asbestos, tobacco, breast implants, etc. were not successful in the first several trials. Plaintiffs only started winning once they had the benefit of being able to review multiple trial transcripts to be able to game plan what exactly the defendants' defense and testimony was going to be before they ever filed suit. So a settlement wasn't just about this one case, it was about keeping a clean slate with private information and defense strategies staying private.