Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kevin C. Brazile has thrown out a lawsuit (Chavez V. Glock, Inc., et al, BC394735) filed by a Los Angeles police officer who blamed a gun maker, a holster company, the firearms seller, and the holster seller for his injuries. The suit was filed after the off-duty officer’s three-year-old son shot him through the back of the driver’s seat of his truck while the boy was playing with the gun in the back seat (view ruling here).

Officer Enrique Chavez, now 39, of Anaheim, was off duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. His three-year-old son, who was not secured in a child safety seat as California law requires, picked up his father's .45-caliber Glock while sitting in the back seat of the truck, where the unsecured and loaded gun also was. The boy accidentally shot his father in the back. There was evidence to suggest the boy thought the gun was a toy. Toy guns were also present in the truck.

For both father and son, the accident was tragic. But it was avoidable. Chavez was not criminally prosecuted for his negligence, perhaps because, sadly, the accident left him paralyzed from the waist down.

Nonetheless, in July 2008, Chavez sued Glock (the maker of the firearm), Uncle Mike's (now Bushnell) (the maker of the gun's holster), Turner’s Outdoorsman (the store that sold the holster), and the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club (LAPRAC) (the store at the Los Angeles Police Department’s training academy that sold the firearm).

Attorneys Chuck Michel and Clint Monfort of Michel and Associates, P.C. in Long Beach, and co-counsel Richard Dieffenbach of Schaffer, Lax, McNaughton & Chen in Los Angeles, defended Turner’s Outdoorsman. In dismissing the case against Turner’s, the Court acknowledged that there is nothing inherently dangerous about a holster, and that the maker or seller of the holster cannot held be liable for injuries caused by a firearm carried in that holster.

Plaintiff’s novel claims of negligence against Turner’s were based on two theories. First, Chavez argued that Turner’s failed to warn him properly of the dangers associated with the use of the holster. Second, he claimed that the holster had a defective design that allowed the firearm to be discharged while in the holster. In rejecting these theories, the Court noted that each was linked to an underlying assumption that the gun itself was somehow unsafe. The Court concluded that because the holster alone poses no danger, there can be no strict liability for these claims.

Additionally, the Court found no wrongdoing or negligence on behalf of either Turner’s or Uncle Mike’s/Bushnell. The Court held that adequate warnings were provided with the holster and found no evidence of any design defect. Uncle Mike’s provided competent evidence that the holster would securely house the firearm at issue and prevent its firing. Turner’s submitted evidence from renowned holster designer and maker, John Bianchi, about the holster’s suitability.

The Judge also dismissed each of the claims against Glock and LAPRAC, citing the "exhaustive review" of the gun's safety conducted by the LAPD before the gun was authorized for purchase.

The Court found that Chavez’s claims of strict liability for negligence were unfounded. The Court reasoned that there was no design defect because Defendants adduced sufficient evidence of various legitimate reasons for the light trigger pressure required to discharge the weapon and the absence of a manual safety. Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that the weapon had no design defect.

The Court also found there could be no liability for failing to warn of the dangers associated with the discharge of the firearm. The Court reasoned that there is no duty to warn of obvious dangers, and stressed that storing a loaded, unlocked firearm in proximity to children constitutes an obvious danger. The court also noted that ample warnings regarding the safe storage of the firearm were, in fact, provided.

Finally, the Court denied Chavez’s warranty claim because such a claim requires privity of contact. Because plaintiff did not purchase the service firearm at issue, the Court was not required to determine whether an express or implied warranty existed or if such a warranty was breached.

The dismissal of this case brings a successful conclusion to this stage of litigation, with which lawyers from Michel and Associates, P.C. have been involved since the case was originally filed more than two years ago. The ruling represents another significant victory for firearm retailers and manufacturers, as the courts continue to acknowledge that retailers and manufacturers cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the misuse their products. An appeal, however, is possible.

###