PRODUCT LIABILITY. $______ VERDICT - PRODUCT LIABILITY - DEFECTIVE POLICE HANDGUN HOLSTER- ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF WEAPON - BULLET WOUND TO RIGHT LEG -PARONEAL NERVE INJURY - NERVE GRAFT PERFORMED - COMPENSATION INJURYTO LEFT HIP.

• Pages: 26-26

Ultimately, many plaintiffs underwent revision

surgeries to replace the implants and repair the

damage.

The jury returned a finding for the defendant, includ-

ing more than $30,000,000 in actual damages and

$1,000,000,000 in punitive damagess.

REFERENCE

In re: vs. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., Pinnacle Hip Im-

plant Products Liability Litigation. Case no. 3:11-md-

0244; Judge Ed Kinkeade, 12-01-16.

Attorney for plaintiff: W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier

Law Firm in Houston, TX.

$2,600,000 VERDICT - PRODUCT LIABILITY - DEFECTIVE POLICE HANDGUN HOLSTER

- ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF WEAPON - BULLET WOUND TO RIGHT LEG -

PARONEAL NERVE INJURY - NERVE GRAFT PERFORMED - COMPENSATION INJURY

TO LEFT HIP.

Philadelphia County, PA

The male plaintiff in this product liability action

was a Pennsylvania State Trooper who claimed

that he suffered a permanent injury when his

holstered Glock-37 duty pistol unexpectedly

discharged. The plaintiff claimed that the

unexpected discharge of the weapon occurred as

a result of a defect in the Gould & Goodrich HHR

double retention holster, in which he was carrying

the loaded weapon. Specifically, the plaintiff

alleged that due to the design of the holster, a

holstered firearm could be discharged by a

foreign object entering the holster and exerting

rearward pressure on the handgun’s trigger

without the user’s knowledge. The plaintiff

maintained that this occurred as he entered his

police cruiser’s front passenger door to retrieve

his shotgun and duty bag, causing the vehicle’s

ignition key, which was hanging from his duty

belt, to become inserted into the holster from the

right side and exert rearward pressure on the

trigger, resulting in the weapon discharging. The

defendants included the manufacturer of the

holster (Gould & Goodrich) as well as the police

supply company which sold the holsters to the

Pennsylvania Police Department. The defendants

maintained that the holster was not defective and

that the gun should not have been carried in a

loaded and cocked position. The defendants

argued that there was no factual basis to

conclude that the plaintiff’s keys entered the

holster and no evidence to demonstrate that any

other foreign object entered the holster. The

defense also stressed that warnings were

provided to the plaintiff which included a safety

precaution to: “NEVER CARRY ANY GUN WITH A

ROUND UNDER THE HAMMER, COCKED AND

LOCKED OR IN A READY-TO-FIRE CONDITION.”

These warnings also included reference to the

importance of keeping foreign objects out of the

holster while the gun is holstered, according to

evidence offered by the defense. The defendants

argued that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury

by carrying a weapon in a manner contrary to the

holster manufacturer’s instructions. The

defendants also contended that the plaintiff had

made a good recovery and was able to return to

full-duty with the police department.

The jury found that the holster was defective. It further

found no comparative negligence on the part of the

plaintiff. They then awarded the plaintiff $2,600,000 in

damages.

REFERENCE

Oleksza vs. Gould & Goodrich, Inc., et al. Case no.

2014-04-004069; Judge Dan Anders, 10-18-16.

Attorney for plaintiff: Gerald B. Baldino, Jr. of

Sacchetta & Baldino in Media, PA.

MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE

$3,167,000 TOTAL VERDICT - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - AUTO/BUS COLLISION

- PLAINTIFFS MAINTAIN THAT DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER CUT THEM OFF WHILE

PASSING ON RIGHT, STRIKING THEIR CAR AND CONTINUING UNTIL CHASED DOWN

- PLAINTIFFS PASSENGER AND DRIVER BOTH SUFFER INJURIES.

Bronx County, NY

This case involved a plaintiff passenger, a male

elevator repairman in his 50’s, and the plaintiff

driver, who was the passenger’s assistant, a male

in his 40’s, in which the plaintiffs contended that

the defendant’s bus driver negligently struck their

car upon suddenly changing lanes after passing

them on the right. The plaintiff passenger claimed

he suffered cervical and lumbar herniations that

required injections, as well as knee tears that

required arthroscopic surgery. This plaintiff

contended that he could not return to work and is

permanently unemployable. The plaintiff driver

asserted that he sustained a tear of the medial

meniscus that prompted arthroscopic surgery

which has provided limited benefit, and that he

26 SUPPLEMENTAL VERDICT DIGEST

Volume 32, Issue 8, March 2017 Subscribe Now