Filed 03/29/10 USDC Colorado
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Case No. 07-cv-01844-PAB-KLM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TASER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Finally, Taser’s reliance on the "sophisticated purchaser/learned intermediary doctrine" is misplaced. ... Even assuming Colorado courts would apply the doctrine to a TASER under appropriate circumstances, the doctrine does not assist Taser under the facts of this case. As an initial matter, Taser’s arguments elsewhere in its brief conflict with any contention that its products, like prescription drugs, are "‘unavoidably unsafe,’" ...in their own right.
[Taser International caught in yet another WASC (Wide Area Self-Contradiction), LOL.]
The warnings cited by Taser do not clearly indicate that, even if misused, a TASER device could cause death absent other circumstances inherent to the use of force. Taser does not, and cannot contend, that the police have the expertise to independently determine, as a matter of electrical engineering and cardiology, the safe and proper use of a TASER device. ... In fact, Taser’s warning can be read to assure police that they can apply their expertise regarding the inherent risks of force application without fear that the TASER will cause a fatality in a manner distinct from other non-lethal applications of force.
If there's any doubt about the magnitude of their (misplaced) confidence, take a close look at the Cardiac Safety webpage, found on Taser International's very own website. It's very much an example of 'Go Big or Stay Home' - it would have been better if they'd stayed home.