Glock, Inc. and Austrian counterpart Glock Ges.m.b.H are the defendants in a proposed class action filed by two Arizona residents who allege certain semi-automatic handgun models manufactured, imported and sold by the companies possess a defect that renders the pistols “unreasonably dangerous and unfit for their intended use.”
Stressing in the 27-page lawsuit that their claims in no way disparage the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, the plaintiffs allege affected Glock handguns are manufactured with a feed ramp that is too long and which causes a lack of chamber support for the round. This can then cause the force of a fired bullet to “exert unreasonable pressures upon the round/casing in the 6 o’clock position,” i.e., when the pistol is being held or aimed slightly lower, according to the suit. The plaintiffs say the “unsupported chamber defect” can create a “blow out” or “kaboom,” which the lawsuit describes as a dangerous situation in which the round or its casing can separate and dislodge at the 6 o’clock position.
From the complaint:
“The Class Guns are defective and unreasonably dangerous because the common design of the Class guns will not prevent and has not prevented a ‘blow out’ or a ‘Kaboom’ which can, and does, result in personal injury. The Defects result from the inadequate design, manufacturing, and testing of the Class Guns, and the continued failure of the Glock Defendants to remedy the Defects. The Defects have created an unreasonably dangerous situation for a person owning and/or possessing a Class Hand Gun, and have substantially reduced or eliminated completely, the value of the Class Guns.”
The “class guns” described in the lawsuit as displaying the above-described defect include, but are not limited to, the following semi-automatic models/series:
22 Gen 4;
23 Gen 4;
27 Gen 4;
35 Gen 4 MOS;
21 Gen 4;
30 Gen 4;
41 Gen 4;
41 Gen 4 MOS;
20 Gen 4;
29 Gen 4;
29 SF; and
40 Gen 4 MOS.
In selling affected pistols to consumers, Glock, the suit says, effectively promised that its products were safe for ordinary use and were free from any defects. At the end of the day, Glock’s representations that the guns around which the suit revolves are not unreasonably dangerous were false, misleading and material to a reasonable consumer, the case argues. Further, the plaintiffs allege Glock has never remedied the apparent defect nor issued “an effective and complete warning to the public or recall” of the handguns at issue despite possessing knowledge of the problem
“At all times relevant to this action, the Glock Defendants had a duty to disclose and warn Plaintiffs and Class Members truthfully and accurately, and not to conceal or misrepresent such truth, about the Defects,” the case says.
The lawsuit asks the court to proposed certify a class of all individuals in the United States and an Arizona-only subclass who owned or currently own any handgun listed above.