RSS
TwitterFacebook

Taser Brain Injury Lawsuit Set for Trial in California

  • Written by: Staff Writers
  • 5 Comments

A California judge has cleared the way for a Taser brain damage lawsuit to proceed to trial, rejecting Taser International’s attempts to dismiss the claim that their stun gun caused a man’s heart to stop.   The trial is scheduled to begin in August, and Taser International was also ordered to pay the plaintiff’s expenses in defending against a portion of their motion, which the court indicated was filed in bad faith.

The Taser lawsuit was filed by Steven Butler, a 48-year-old man with a history of mental illness who was Tasered by police three times on a Santa Cruz Metro bus after he refused to leave the vehicle. The complaint alleges that the Taser caused Butler’s heart stopped and he needed to be resuscitated, resulting in severe brain damage that has left him permanently disabled.

Butler’s lawsuit claims that the Taser stun gun, also known as an electric control device (ECD), caused abnormal heart rhythms that resulted in cardiac arrest and subsequent brain damage. He also alleges that the company misrepresented the safety of Taser guns to law enforcement officials.

Taser attempted to have the lawsuit thrown out and asked Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge J. Jeffrey Almquist to rule that Taser’s Model X26 ECD weapons do not cause cardiac arrest. They also asked the judge to dismiss the case on the basis that they have no duty to warn police that the weapons carry a cardiac arrest risk.

Judge Almquist denied the motion for summary judgment, ruling that a jury will decide whether the Taser caused cardiac arrest for the plaintiff, whether Taser is strictly liable for failing to warn about the heart risks, whether Taser intentionally deceived police officers, whether Taser negligently misrepresented the cardiac safety and whether Taser should pay punitive damages based on fraud and malice.

The court also found that a portion of Taser’s motion was “substantially immaterial and irrelevant,” causing a waste of time for the parties and the court. According to a press release issued by Butler’s attorneys, Judge Almquist ordered Taser to pay the plaintiff’s counsel $15,000 in attorney fees to compensate them for their time in responding to that portion of the motion.

Scottsdale-based Taser International has vigorously defended the safety of the weapons in the media and in other cases, obtaining dismissals of many Taser lawsuits that have been filed against them.

Although the Taser has maintained that their weapons are safe and do not pose a serious risk of fatal or permanent injury, the company issued a memo to police agencies throughout the United States last fall warning officers to avoid chests shots. Although Taser has said it issued the warning as a means of legal risk management for law enforcement agencies, critics have characterized the recommendations as an admission that the Taser guns can cause heart problems. Taser International has disagreed with this interpretation of their recommendations.

The new recommendations, included in a revised training manual, note that the possibility of someone having a cardiac arrest after recently being shot with a stun gun could place Taser and police in the difficult role of having to determine whether the stun gun was a contributing factor. To avoid that, the company recommends that law enforcement agencies train their officers to fire the gun below the chest.

In 2008, Amnesty International released a report on Taser police use, calling for departments throughout the United States to stop using Taser guns or to strictly limit their use to life-threatening situations. The human rights group linked 334 deaths to the use of Taser guns between 2001 and August 2008. Amnesty noted that 90% of the Taser deaths examined involved people who were unarmed and did not appear to present a serious threat to the officers. A large number of the fatalities involved misuse of the weapons, including multiple Taser shocks or exposing suspects to prolonged shocks.

Tags: , , , , , ,

5 comments

  1. J Blais Reply

    THIS IS OLD NEWS….this story came out WEEKS AGO ! But money hungry attorneys keep printing it, hoping to get clients to try and sue the company. But TASER’s record AGAINST these lawsuits are 100 to 1 !!

  2. Excited-Delirium blog Reply

    There’s some evidence that the X26 taser (2003) might be significantly more dangerous (lethality) PER DEPLOYMENT than the older M26 taser (1999). The evidence that supports this is that there was a period where the M26 taser was still being used much more often than the X26, and yet the X26 seems to dominate the taser associated death reports for the same period. If this tentative and non-overlapping datasets observation can be confirmed, then it would end the arguments.

  3. Jim Reply

    90% of 340 people, who were not a threat…! this is UNACCEPTABLE. Anyone’s child, father, or mother who lost their life because they behaved in a manner undesirable, but not threatening to an over zealous officer is one too many. No one should be tasered for their speech, or a prank. People must speak out against these fascist, police state tactics of controlling people with lethal force, while the people still can. We do live in a free speech and action society, as long as we don’t threaten or hurt anyone…or do we. How many of you, right now, are afraid to speak out to abuse of power for fear of being punished. People are being considered a threat to some circles of power just for exercising their freedom of speech (IE the Bush administration illegally spying on the public, habeus corpus being taken away in the name of national security) Listen, people, don’t be willing to be brain washed into giving up our rights.

  4. Nicholas Reply

    Compton Sheriff tazered me twice in the chest. I have had thius unusual heart gulp that I think is happening periodically because of the tazer. It is as if my heart halts temporarily and then gulps back into beating. They shot me right in the nipple and pulled the tazer trigger twice. I take seroquel and was already on the ground passing out from drinking when they approached me and tazered me for not responding to their orders fast enough. My heart keeps feeling like itis falling out on me and then pops back into rythmn. I think these tazers are bad for heartbeat health.

  5. Butch Reply

    There is simply no justification for using a potentially lethal weapon to subdue someone who is not posing a lethal threat. Period. The recent CBS news report (police video of the actual incident) about a Marin County California man, age 64, who was tasered repeatedly because he refused deputies orders to get into an ambulance (he didn’t have health insurance and didn’t want to go to the hospital) shows that this type of thing is going on. Too many cops are poorly trained, show poor judgement, and are often disrespectful and needlessly brutal (I lived in Chicago and have seen this firsthand). If taser use were limited to potentially lethal situations, nobody would be suing the police or Taser International. The company needs to acknowledge that their device can be life threatening – ergo, not to be used lightly – and maybe this and other lawsuitswill force such an acknowledgment.

  • Share Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide additional contact information if you want an attorney to review your comments and contact you about a potential case. This information will not be published.
  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Contact A Lawyer

Contact A Lawyer

Have A Potential Case Reviewed By An Attorney

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.