« Quite a case | Main | The (anti)Gun Guys at it again »
Taser loses liability suit
Story was here, but a comment made a good point--why link to a Bloomberg story? They lost a federal verdict for a million in actuals plus five mill in punitives. Officers used several Tasers on a fellow who was apparently high on meth. and his heart stopped. The jury found for the officers, but against Taser, on the theory that it had inadequately warned users against risks. Sounds thin to me, but the jury bought it.
Comments
About time. They need to start loosing a lot more of these suits.
Posted by: Samuel at June 10, 2008 04:29 PM
Most of us say that the gun is not the problem it is the illegal use of the gun that is the problem. We constantly tell everyone we meet that guns don't kill people... Same with the Taser. Not a bad tool. Just a few bad people using it. When It was used as an alternative to deadly force it was good. Now that it is an alternative to an ASP and common sense...not so good.
Posted by: Chuck at June 10, 2008 05:37 PM
I sure hope Glock has been telling police officers (also known, apparently, as "idiots") that bullets can kill people.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at June 10, 2008 08:31 PM
The officers I have spoken to on the issue say that the use of Tasers has reduced officer AND perpetrator injury rates. In many cases, the alternative to a Taser is shooting someone. Or using a nightstick, which also can result in death, if a strike hits the wrong place or the wrong way.
Posted by: James at June 10, 2008 09:39 PM
James,
Or at least reduced obvious injuries on non-LEOs. Using a baton on someone to enforce compliance is much more obvious than using a taser on them.
The police in question misused their tasers. Taser should not be liable for that misuse. The idiots misusing the tools are the ones who ought to be held liable, and by that I mean personally liable, not departmentally liable. The department didn't make the decision to keep shocking the ever loving bejesus out of the poor guy.
Posted by: Gregg at June 11, 2008 03:51 AM
If you use a Taser on a meth addict, should you be surprised that he has a heart attack?
The article says the police didn't know of the danger that it could kill the perp. If that's the case, then maybe the "failure to warn" aspect of the suit has some merit.
I still don't see how punitive damages are justified, though, and I'd like to know more about the evidence. It could just be a case of a jury going after the deep pockets of the Taser corporation rather than the more limited pockets of the municipality.
Posted by: Assman at June 11, 2008 08:17 AM
No comment at all about the case; rather about your source and link.
Do you *really* want to direct traffic to Bloomberg.com? Every hit on that site accrues information "trust" and directs advertising cash into the pocket of what has proved to be one of the most anti-gun clowns out there. He's already stinking rich, he's already hubris-level politically powerful. Why give him any more?
Posted by: bud at June 12, 2008 03:01 PM