The significant public benefit of Taser's legal loss

Read the full article here: [LINK]

A few weeks ago, Taser International was ordered to pay $1,423,000 in attorney fees as a result of a product's liability verdict... Robert C. Heston ... suffered cardiac arrest and later died as a result of the taser deployment.

...in order to obtain attorney fees in such a case, the lawyers had to prove four things: 1) a plaintiff must be a successful party in an action resulting in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interests, 2) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary, must have been conferred on the general public or a broad class of persons, 3) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement must transcend the litigant's personal interest in the controversy, and 4) such fees should not, in the interest of justice, be paid out of the recovery.

The federal judge ... found "notoriety of Plaintiff's first-of-its-kind verdict, in some circumstances, has prompted a number of Taser customers and prospective customers to consider the risk of repeated and prolonged taser electrical charges on individuals in an excited or delirious state.”

This satisfied the significant benefit clause according to the Judge.


An excellent start to 2009.

Of course Taser plans to appeal because they're still living in an alternate Universe where tasers-R-safe.


And reportedly (*), Taser has still not amended the training to address this proven-in-court, might-cause-death, internal risk factor.

(* The judge noted in his order that Taser still hasn't adopted a warning that addresses the risks of metabolic acidosis.) [LINK]


Jurisdictions worldwide might wish to consider the legal and moral implications (on them!) of Taser's continued state of denial and the fact that the taser training materials, provided by Taser and their minions, that they often rely upon has still not been updated.

Have you checked your taser training material lately?


Time for some LAWSUITS!!!!!!