Chavez v. Glock, Inc.
207 Cal. App. 4th 1283
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Chavez, a LAPD officer, was shot in the back by his three-year-old son with a Glock Clock 21 pistol stored in his truck, leaving him paraplegic.
- Chavez and his wife sued Glock, Revolver Club, Bushnell, and Turner’s Outdoorsman for strict liability and related claims, alleging design defects (light trigger pull without adequate safety) and holster defects (inadequate trigger protection and/or insecure retention).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants; Chavez appeals challenging design defect and related theories, including the holster design, warnings, and implied warranty claims.
- Key issues include whether the Glock 21 design (trigger pull, lack of safety/grip safety) and the holster design were defective under consumer expectation or risk-benefit tests, and whether the manufacturers were liable despite Chavez’s own storage practices.
- The court discusses PLCAA immunity, deciding there are triable issues of fact whether Chavez’s action falls within product defect exceptions and whether the discharge was caused by a volitional criminal act, warranting remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design defect causation under strict liability | Chavez argues grip safety and heavier trigger would have prevented discharge | Clock/Revolver Club contend no causation; evidence insufficient | Triable issues exist on grip safety and trigger-pull causation |
| Failure to warn regarding holster/use | Clock/ Revolver Club failed to warn to use holster restricting trigger access | Sophisticated user defense negates duty to warn | Remand for adjudication of failure-to-warn claims against Clock and Revolver Club |
| Implied warranty/privity | Clock/ Revolver Club liable for implied warranty despite switch of weapons | Lack of privity generally bars implied warranty | Privity issue resolved in Chavez’s favor for implied warranty against Clock and Revolver Club |
| PLCAA applicability | Action not barred; design defect exception could apply | Action falls within PLCAA exclusions or requires volitional-criminal-act analysis | Triable issues exist; remand to determine PLCAA applicability |
| Holster defect under consumer expectations | Holster design allowed triggering of the pistol by a child | Holster’s concealment and retention features adequate; expert testimony insufficient | Factual issues remain; not resolved on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994) (design defect and consumer expectations framework; risk-benefit)
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (Cal. 1978) (design defect tests; consumer expectation vs. risk-benefit)
- Campbell v. General Motors Corp., 32 Cal.3d 112 (Cal. 1982) (consumer expectation vs. risk-benefit balance; jury questions on safety expectations)
- McCabe v. American Honda Motor Co., 100 Cal.App.4th 1111 (Cal. App. 2002) (design defect analyses and consumer expectations in specialized cases)
- Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 43 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2008) (sophisticated user defense to failure-to-warn)
- Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 187 Cal.App.4th 1220 (Cal. App. 2010) (limits on consumer expectation in specialized products; balancing risk/benefit)