Chavez

Chavez v. Glock, Inc.

Good Law
144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 326·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 832·207 Cal. App. 4th 1283·2012 WL 3013925
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 24, 2012No. B230346California15,931 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Perluss, J.

Los Angeles Police Officer Enrique Herrera Chavez was shot in the back with his service weapon, a Clock 21, by his three-year-old son, rendering him a paraplegic. Chavez and his wife, Leonora Aduna Chavez, sued the manufacturers and retailers of his gun and its holster for strict product liability and related torts, alleging the Clock 21 is defective because it has a light trigger pull without an appropriate safety mechanism to prevent accidental discharge and the holster fails to sufficiently protect the trigger or properly secure the gun. The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment filed by each defendant. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

*1291 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Shooting Incident

Chavez joined the Los Angeles Police Department (Department) in 1996. According to Chavez, he was taught at the police academy an officer should carry a firearm in a ready-to-fire condition both on and off duty. Chavez was particularly influenced by the story of an officer who was shot in her driveway after an assailant had followed her home from the police station.

Chavez was also taught about firearm safety, including the proper way to store…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.