[00:00:00] Speaker 05:
Good morning, everybody.

[00:00:02] Speaker 05:
We'll be hearing four cases this morning.

[00:00:07] Speaker 05:
And we will start with Oglesby v. Glock, which is number 23-5134.

[00:00:16] Speaker 05:
Counsel, you may proceed.

[00:00:24] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Honors.

[00:00:25] Speaker 04:
I want to first start talking about the Glock

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
design as it relates to the safeties inside the firearm.

[00:00:35] Speaker 04:
Glock states that they have three independent safeties.

[00:00:38] Speaker 04:
There is a trigger safety, there's a firing pin safety, and then there's a ledge or a slot that they call a drop safety.

[00:00:46] Speaker 04:
The reason I want to talk about this is the sequencing of and design of how these are

[00:00:52] Speaker 04:
removed and make the gun an actionable gun where it will fire are important to the warnings and instructions in this case.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
All three safeties are purported to be independent, but all rely on each other working together.

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
This is because if the trigger safety is deactivated, then it puts into motion or can put into motion during a drop fire event

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
where the other two safeties do not provide protection date, they purport that it does.

[00:01:20] Speaker 04:
As the trigger moves rearward after that safety is either never activated or has been deactivated by the user,

[00:01:28] Speaker 04:
then that trigger moves rearward, causing the firing pin safety to move up with an arm that is connected to the trigger.

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
And then the trigger is also providing a force that propels itself rearward and will then hit a ramp and fall back and outside of the drop safety, causing the gun to fire.

[00:01:47] Speaker 04:
And that's important because if someone does think that they've designed a gun that has three independent safeties and it doesn't, and they're telling the public that it has three independent safeties,

[00:01:56] Speaker 04:
they're setting the expectations of the public.

[00:02:00] Speaker 04:
And so one of the expectations of the public for this unreasonable design is that they have three independent safeties to prevent drop fires and inadvertent discharges in this firearm.

[00:02:12] Speaker 01:
In this case though, whether they had one, two, or three, all of the Glock original safety features were removed and replaced with a different

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
manufacturers.

[00:02:28] Speaker 04:
That is not true.

[00:02:29] Speaker 04:
The components that were part of the safeties were not removed.

[00:02:33] Speaker 04:
The drop safety ledge is still in there.

[00:02:36] Speaker 04:
The firing pin safety is still in there.

[00:02:38] Speaker 04:
The trigger safety is in there.

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
What was changed were three springs in a connector that are not identified as the safety features.

[00:02:49] Speaker 04:
One, I will give you the firing pin safety, which I think had minimal impact on this event, has a spring right above it.

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
But that's not the key point.

[00:02:57] Speaker 04:
The key point is the firing pin spring was changed and the trigger spring was changed.

[00:03:02] Speaker 04:
These are the springs that people believe are related to the trigger pull and the firing mechanism of the gun.

[00:03:07] Speaker 04:
They aren't springs that people understand are part of the safety features being driven into their active state.

[00:03:14] Speaker 05:
Well, I think you're heading in this direction.

[00:03:18] Speaker 05:
Why doesn't the warning cover this?

[00:03:21] Speaker 05:
Well, the warning is very generic.

[00:03:22] Speaker 05:
The warning just says, do not.

[00:03:23] Speaker 05:
Well, probably generic because there's so many things that can be changed.

[00:03:28] Speaker 05:
I don't believe that.

[00:03:28] Speaker 05:
Do they need to have a warning on all three of the examples you just gave us?

[00:03:33] Speaker 04:
I don't think they need to have a warning on all three examples.

[00:03:35] Speaker 04:
They need to have a warning on our known examples and foreseeable modifications.

[00:03:40] Speaker 05:
The warning says that parts are

[00:03:46] Speaker 05:
parts are not altered or modified, right?

[00:03:51] Speaker 05:
Strict adherence to safety instructions, other instructions contained in this manual, based on this premise that parts are not altered or modified.

[00:04:00] Speaker 05:
Everything you just mentioned could be altered or modified.

[00:04:03] Speaker 04:
Anything on the firearm can be altered or modified.

[00:04:05] Speaker 04:
And that's the point, isn't it?

[00:04:06] Speaker 04:
Why isn't the warning adequate?

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
My point is that that's not a

[00:04:10] Speaker 04:
a salient enough warning to provide the user what they know could modify it.

[00:04:15] Speaker 05:
You've got a case that supports that position.

[00:04:18] Speaker 04:
Brownsville talks about that.

[00:04:19] Speaker 05:
What's your best, what's your closest analogous Oklahoma case that would support your position that the warning wasn't adequate?

[00:04:27] Speaker 04:
Well, Smith v. Gibson talks about they had a warning related to the adhesive, and they found it was enough of a jury question because the warning wasn't sufficient to warn the user of what to not do.

[00:04:39] Speaker 04:
And it says if the warnings are unclear or inadequate to apprise the consumer of the inherent or latent danger, the product may be defective.

[00:04:46] Speaker 00:
Is that case about the specificity of the warning that's required?

[00:04:50] Speaker 04:
That was one of the reasons it was appealed, yes.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
Well, and that was because they didn't talk about a room with no windows, right?

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
They didn't warn against using the product in a room without windows.

[00:05:02] Speaker 04:
But they had other warnings on there that they thought were related to that.

[00:05:06] Speaker 04:
That is what's happening in this case.

[00:05:07] Speaker 04:
When I think of a warning, I think of it similar to, like, informed consent when you go in for a medical procedure.

[00:05:12] Speaker 04:
If all you're told is, if you enter surgery, you may die, that is not an informed consent.

[00:05:18] Speaker 04:
That is what this Glock warning is, is a limited warning saying, do not modify anything.

[00:05:24] Speaker 04:
There were some other modifications.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
Well, that's not a limited warning.

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
That's a very broad warning.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
Warning, do not change the parts.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
Do not alter or modify our parts.

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
And if you do, we don't warrant this.

[00:05:41] Speaker 04:
Well, Kirkland doesn't say isn't about just a true warranty.

[00:05:44] Speaker 04:
It's about whether a product is defective and whether the warning is defective.

[00:05:49] Speaker 04:
It's not about whether we'll switch out your parts at a later date.

[00:05:52] Speaker 04:
That's what that warning is saying.

[00:05:54] Speaker 04:
We won't warrant this.

[00:05:55] Speaker 00:
What should this warning have said to satisfy your view of what the law requires?

[00:06:00] Speaker 04:
This warning should have said that if you increase the trigger spring strength and decrease the firing pin strength, that could cause the gun to not activate and reset its trigger safety.

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
That is a very simple warning that puts them on notice.

[00:06:20] Speaker 04:
They have a warning on a different issue on page 21 of their instruction manual.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
Well, that's a very specific warning to the facts of this case, but I think as Judge Matheson said, there are a whole lot of ways to modify this gun with aftermarket parts.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
And rather than trying to think of every possible way a buyer might modify the gun, they're saying, we warrant it if you keep it as we've made it.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
But once you start trading out parts and modifying it, we don't warrant it.

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
Under Oklahoma law, that is not the standard.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
The standard- In the case you're still relying on

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
What's the name of that case?

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
Not Smith.

[00:07:08] Speaker 04:
No, that's just about the warning.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
But foreseeable modifications are actionable.

[00:07:12] Speaker 04:
Sopiti v. Yazoo Manufacturing and Ford Motor Company.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
Yeah, and they did foresee modifications.

[00:07:20] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
And said, don't do it because if you make modifications, if you change out these parts, we won't warrant it.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
And what you're saying is,

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
They have to anticipate every possible way.

[00:07:34] Speaker 01:
that someone might modify this gun and make a specific warning as to each possible modification.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
Is that what you're saying?

[00:07:43] Speaker 04:
I'm not saying they have to anticipate every possible modification and warn on every possible modification, but generally when you look at these spring manufacturers, what they are modifying is the trigger pull, which includes these two springs.

[00:07:57] Speaker 04:
And the second part of the defective condition design that the alternative design provides

[00:08:01] Speaker 04:
is a sequencing of when this trigger safety gets put into place.

[00:08:06] Speaker 04:
As it moves forward, it first resets the trigger, which means the gun can be fired again, and then it has to move forward again to reset the safety.

[00:08:17] Speaker 04:
One of the items that we are talking about is that should be either instantaneous at the same time or the safety should be

[00:08:25] Speaker 04:
activated before that trigger reset occurs.

[00:08:27] Speaker 04:
That's what the alternative design does.

[00:08:30] Speaker 05:
Why isn't your argument more relevant to the second element of a product's liability claim?

[00:08:36] Speaker 05:
In other words, you have to show that the product caused the injury.

[00:08:40] Speaker 05:
I don't think there's dispute about that.

[00:08:42] Speaker 05:
The defect existed when the product left the manufacturer's possession.

[00:08:48] Speaker 05:
And as I understand it, the parties agree that it's reasonably foreseeable that the Glock could be modified with non-Glock parts, which is exactly what we're talking about here.

[00:08:59] Speaker 05:
And then we get to the warning.

[00:09:01] Speaker 05:
But it seems to me you're talking about this foreseeability issue, which seems to be step two that really isn't in dispute, is it?

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
Well, that's why I talked about the sequencing.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
The sequencing is the gun leaving its

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
It's in their possession, leaving it in its design.

[00:09:18] Speaker 05:
Well, no, I'm just asking you to match your argument to the elements of the claim.

[00:09:22] Speaker 05:
And what I'm asking you is whether your argument fits a little bit more with number two than number three.

[00:09:28] Speaker 04:
I think it fits with both.

[00:09:29] Speaker 04:
But if you feel that number two is stronger, we can discuss number two more.

[00:09:33] Speaker 05:
Well, no, I don't think the parties are disputing number two.

[00:09:36] Speaker 05:
And that's my point.

[00:09:38] Speaker 05:
And it was foreseeable that these changes could be made.

[00:09:42] Speaker 05:
There's a warning not to do changes.

[00:09:45] Speaker 04:
What's the complication?

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
The warning isn't sufficient.

[00:09:50] Speaker 04:
It doesn't tell the user what they should be changing.

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
For example, Mr. Oglesby stippled the grip, which is where he used a soldering iron to add abrasive towards easier to grip.

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
He changed out a backplate.

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
Those modifications do not change the safety of the gun, which is why you should have specific warnings that will change the safeties of the gun.

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
Well, this warning ties it directly to that the Glock pistols have several internal design features and mechanical safeties designed to prevent an accidental discharge should the pistol be dropped.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
So it's telling you exactly what the danger is if you mess with the gun.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
And then it says, we're only warranting the safe function of the pistol

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
based on the premise that parts are not altered or modified.

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
Then I would ask, why do they sanction events where Glock users are told to come to a Glock event within an unlimited competition where they are allowed to modify their gun when they know it's unsafe?

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
Well, that's not in the record that I've read.

[00:10:56] Speaker 04:
Yes, it is.

[00:10:57] Speaker 04:
It's in the back of my appendix where we talk about it's an unlimited warning.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
Well, what does it have to do with the warning?

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
Has to do with the warning.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
They want users to ignore the warning.

[00:11:11] Speaker 05:
Well, now that's a different argument, isn't it?

[00:11:14] Speaker 05:
I mean, either the warning's adequate or it's not.

[00:11:18] Speaker 05:
I don't think it's adequate.

[00:11:19] Speaker 05:
I understand that.

[00:11:20] Speaker 05:
But now you just said they're trying to get users to ignore the warning.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
They know what's happening.

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
And so if they know what's happening and they know people are putting in the springs.

[00:11:29] Speaker 05:
They know it's happening, and that's element two.

[00:11:31] Speaker 05:
They know it's happening, so at element three, they provide a warning.

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
and I don't think the warning is adequate.

[00:11:37] Speaker 04:
You have to provide specificity.

[00:11:39] Speaker 04:
It doesn't have to be granular.

[00:11:41] Speaker 04:
You have to say the exact specifications.

[00:11:42] Speaker 05:
Well, it sounds like it might have to be granular.

[00:11:44] Speaker 05:
Look, it doesn't the record show that there's just, I don't know how many different types of non-glock parts out there and many different ways to alter the firearm.

[00:11:59] Speaker 05:
Are you saying that the Glock needs to anticipate every single one of those and put them all into one kind of omnibus, global, specific warning?

[00:12:12] Speaker 05:
Is that what would have to happen?

[00:12:14] Speaker 05:
No, what I'm saying is these aftermarket... Because there's your case, and you want a warning tailored to exactly what happened here.

[00:12:21] Speaker 05:
But the adequacy of the warning has to cover the foreseeable risks.

[00:12:30] Speaker 05:
Why wouldn't this do that?

[00:12:32] Speaker 04:
Because it doesn't talk about what specific parts are related to their actual safeties.

[00:12:36] Speaker 04:
It just says the entire gun cannot be modified.

[00:12:38] Speaker 05:
You don't lay out in your brief, do you, what an adequate warning would be?

[00:12:45] Speaker 04:
I don't put a specific language, no.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
I'll reserve my time for the rebuttal.

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
Thank you for having me.

[00:13:01] Speaker 02:
If it's okay with the court, I'd like to address the questions in order that they were asked of counsel.

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
I would start with Judge McHugh.

[00:13:08] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, you're absolutely right.

[00:13:10] Speaker 02:
The Safe Action System, this revolutionary system, involves all of the parts that are at issue in this case.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
The firearm pin spring, the firearm pin safety spring, the trigger spring, the connector are all part of the Safe Action System.

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
They're what makes the Safe Action System work.

[00:13:27] Speaker 02:
Judge Matheson.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
You had a question about generic and a generic warning.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
You're absolutely right.

[00:13:32] Speaker 02:
There are so many different things that could be changed here.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
The record shows there are hundreds of manufacturers out there that make aftermarket parts for a Glock pistol.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
Why?

[00:13:42] Speaker 02:
Because it's so popular.

[00:13:43] Speaker 02:
It's proven.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
Sixty percent of law enforcement in this country use it.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
It's used by the court officers here.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
national, state, local law enforcement agencies, the record shows these guns do not drop fire.

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
So you're right, Your Honor.

[00:13:58] Speaker 02:
That's why we have to do a blanket warning.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
What is the best case?

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
You asked counsel.

[00:14:04] Speaker 02:
I'm going to tell you the best case is the Braswell case.

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
From this court is on all fours with all of the issues here.

[00:14:13] Speaker 02:
Oklahoma law does not require, excuse me, granular specificity.

[00:14:19] Speaker 02:
for their warnings.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
Judge Rosman, what should the warning say?

[00:14:26] Speaker 02:
You asked that question.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
And counsel said, well, if you increase this and you decrease this and you increase this, you may have a problem.

[00:14:34] Speaker 02:
But what about the other company making the aftermarket parts and they do it in reverse?

[00:14:38] Speaker 02:
Could that be a problem?

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
If you increase it or decrease it, if you increase it or decrease that, and with all the different parts, how could you have some type of warning like that?

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
And it goes further.

[00:14:49] Speaker 02:
It's not only don't make modifications, don't open up that part of the firearm.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
As counsel stated, his client removed the slide cover plate of the slide.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
You're not even supposed to do that.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
Why?

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
Because inside is the inside of the guts, which is where the firing pin is, where the firing pin safety spring is.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
the parts at issue here.

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
Glock says, don't do it.

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
Don't go in there.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
How should we be thinking about if the record supports your adversary's position that Glock knows that there are modifications happening all the time?

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
How does that affect our thinking about whether the blanket warning that you have is sufficient?

[00:15:30] Speaker 02:
But Ford F-150 is the most popular truck in the country.

[00:15:34] Speaker 02:
Modifications are made to it every day.

[00:15:36] Speaker 02:
Glock is the most popular firearm in the country.

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
Modifications are made to it.

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
Yes, they know that.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
That's not an issue here.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
Forseeability is not an issue here.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
Judge Forsell went to the third problem.

[00:15:48] Speaker 02:
Is it unreasonably dangerous?

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
Because he found, and this court continually finds that Oklahoma loan foreseeability may not be, you know, they may not have tackled it enough for us to be able to pass on it.

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
So we look at unreasonably dangerous.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
And is this firearm unreasonably dangerous?

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
Just like in Braswell, was the product there unreasonably dangerous?

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
So we keep foreseeability out of it, and we go to that.

[00:16:13] Speaker 02:
We go to the consumer expectation test.

[00:16:15] Speaker 02:
We go to the case law for Braswell.

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
You can't, you know,

[00:16:19] Speaker 02:
Post-sale modifications are not enough to bring liability upon the manufacturer.

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
An otherwise unsafe product is not made unreasonably dangerous if the manufacturer fails to prevent the replacement of a part with a substandard aftermarket.

[00:16:36] Speaker 05:
Council, can I just jump in here because I had a question related to that.

[00:16:39] Speaker 05:
So there's granular on one side and then there's general

[00:16:46] Speaker 05:
on the other, and there's got to be a lot in between.

[00:16:50] Speaker 05:
And if this case were presented to a jury and they needed guidance on the criteria of what would be an adequate warning,

[00:17:04] Speaker 05:
based on the case law.

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
How would you articulate that?

[00:17:08] Speaker 02:
I would articulate it like this court did in Braswell.

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
And I think those warnings weren't as strong as the warnings that we had before the court.

[00:17:15] Speaker 02:
And it's not just the warnings, don't do it, don't modify the parts.

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
Glock goes so much further because I'm not going to read all the warnings the court has it.

[00:17:25] Speaker 02:
But they intentionally, in their manuals, in their guides, they say, don't open the stamp, the darn thing up.

[00:17:32] Speaker 02:
Excuse me, apologies.

[00:17:33] Speaker 02:
Don't disassemble it in detail.

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
That's a warning.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
You know, if you go beyond field stripping, three parts, go to a Glock Armora.

[00:17:42] Speaker 02:
Don't do it.

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
There's step-by-step instructions, and this is so important, in the manual to determine whether or not the gun is functioning.

[00:17:52] Speaker 05:
Sorry, you're now at the testing instructions.

[00:17:54] Speaker 05:
I'm sorry?

[00:17:55] Speaker 05:
Testing instructions, is that what you're talking about now?

[00:17:57] Speaker 05:
Yeah, absolutely.

[00:17:59] Speaker 02:
It all goes in with the warnings.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
So if they had done number 11 of the testing instructions, would this problem have been identified?

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, you can see it with the naked eye.

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
There's a firearm, there's a trigger, and it's a trigger safety, and it sticks out.

[00:18:18] Speaker 00:
Well, I mean, the instruction 11 and 10 talk about forward, and that doesn't seem to be so clear.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
If we know that 44% threshold is important to the pistol safety, I mean, why isn't it unclear what forward is supposed to mean?

[00:18:37] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, it's not.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
Why not?

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
Because forward is forward and rearward is rearward.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
But it's distilled by these percentages, isn't that?

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
What percentage?

[00:18:47] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
Well, that's the argument that your adversary makes, that it's unclear what forward really means.

[00:18:54] Speaker 02:
He's making an argument.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
He's trying to make an argument that the pistol is defective.

[00:19:01] Speaker 02:
in its present state without aftermarket parts, which is not before the court, all the evidence shows that it's not defective as designed to manufacture by the manufacturer.

[00:19:11] Speaker 02:
What he's trying to say is, if you put a different type of trigger in there, maybe perhaps you can... Well, no, I think what he's trying to say is it's hard to follow the instructions to the letter because it's unclear what forward means.

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
You don't have to follow it to the letter.

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
That's not the argument.

[00:19:26] Speaker 02:
The argument is saying you have to follow it to the letter.

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
You can follow any one of these 10 different warnings, and this thing would never happen.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
But I think, and I don't think it's a jury question.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
I thought that you had to follow all the steps.

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
You don't have to follow all the steps?

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
You can follow any one of them.

[00:19:42] Speaker 02:
If he checked the trigger safety,

[00:19:44] Speaker 02:
Number 10, he would have seen that the trigger safety wasn't working.

[00:19:47] Speaker 02:
If whoever made the modifications read the warnings, they wouldn't have made the modifications.

[00:19:52] Speaker 02:
If they read the warnings not to open the pistol, they wouldn't have opened the pistol.

[00:19:56] Speaker 02:
If any one of these various things were followed, this never would have happened.

[00:20:00] Speaker 02:
So we can't just look granularly at a warning and say, oh, that may not be

[00:20:09] Speaker 02:
And I think it's very clear.

[00:20:10] Speaker 02:
I don't think anyone in the record has made a good argument that any of this is not clear.

[00:20:16] Speaker 02:
It's in plain, simple English.

[00:20:18] Speaker 02:
And most importantly, Mr. Oglesby told me on the road, he said, and he looked at me and he said, I know what that means.

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
He's been around guns his whole life.

[00:20:27] Speaker 02:
He's in the military.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
He made changes to guns.

[00:20:30] Speaker 02:
He had guns.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
You know what that meant?

[00:20:34] Speaker 02:
That's in the deposition.

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
That's in the deposition.

[00:20:36] Speaker 02:
I apologize.

[00:20:37] Speaker 02:
I don't know.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
It's in the record, but he was a firearms person.

[00:20:41] Speaker 02:
He knew a lot about firearms.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
He worked in a shop that sold these points.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
He made changes to the back of the pistol that you're not supposed to do.

[00:20:49] Speaker 02:
And he did it anyway.

[00:20:50] Speaker 02:
He stippled the grip so that he can have better combat control over it.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
He knows his gun.

[00:20:55] Speaker 02:
He knows it well.

[00:20:56] Speaker 05:
What about this argument the Okupis make that Glock should have, and I'm just going to quote, adapted the safety mechanisms to remain effective despite the modifications?

[00:21:08] Speaker 05:
What's your response to that argument?

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
Hundreds of aftermarket part manufacturers, thousands of aftermarket parts, and hundreds of thousands of combinations of parts that could defeat a safety and a firearm.

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
How could this product manufacturer warn of all those hundreds of thousands of changes?

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
And that's just today, Your Honor.

[00:21:34] Speaker 02:
What about tomorrow?

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
Let's say they somehow did that, which is impossible.

[00:21:39] Speaker 02:
What about the aftermarket part manufacturer tomorrow who comes up with a different way?

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
I'll make this more tension, this less tension.

[00:21:46] Speaker 02:
When is the obligation of a product manufacturer end?

[00:21:51] Speaker 02:
Or is it they have to continually go out there with hundreds of thousands of combinations and say, look for this, look for this, look for this?

[00:21:58] Speaker 02:
That's why you have to do blanket, and it's blanket plus.

[00:22:02] Speaker 02:
It's not just blanket.

[00:22:04] Speaker 02:
It's blanket plus.

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
belts and suspenders and whatever else holds the pants up.

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
Because you have your warnings.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
Don't go into the firearm.

[00:22:13] Speaker 02:
Don't make these changes.

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
Here's how to test to see if it happens.

[00:22:18] Speaker 02:
It's Legion.

[00:22:19] Speaker 02:
This record is filled with it.

[00:22:21] Speaker 02:
There's no failure to warn you.

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
So I think the public policy considerations are huge with this case.

[00:22:28] Speaker 02:
The product was safe for its intended use in the condition that it was sold.

[00:22:33] Speaker 02:
Only the post-sale modifications and everyone agrees

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
made it unsafe.

[00:22:38] Speaker 02:
And the product manufacturer warned against it.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
If we were to go further and say there's more to do, that would wreak havoc.

[00:22:46] Speaker 02:
And I hate opening the floodgates to litigation, but man, isn't that exactly what would happen here?

[00:22:52] Speaker 02:
There's just too many ways.

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
You can make too many changes and modifications to this product or any other product that may come before the court in the future.

[00:23:02] Speaker 02:
You know, are we going to get granular?

[00:23:04] Speaker 02:
As opposed to what Braswell says, you have to get granular.

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
You have to get the message out there.

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
No one can say, as a matter of law, that message didn't go out there.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
Any questions?

[00:23:18] Speaker 02:
Any further questions?

[00:23:23] Speaker 02:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:23:24] Speaker 02:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:23:25] Speaker 02:
Your honor, I appreciate it.

[00:23:34] Speaker 04:
First, I want to point out with regard to the unlimited competition where they are allowed to make modifications, that's at Appendix 880.

[00:23:41] Speaker 04:
And that is a Glock-sanctioned competition.

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
The second thing I want to talk about is... Again, what does that have to do with this?

[00:23:50] Speaker 04:
They're telling people to make modifications.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
They're telling you in the actual warning with the purchase of this Glock that if you make those modifications, you run the risk of having a danger

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
of a drop fire and we won't warrant it.

[00:24:08] Speaker 04:
Then why do they then tell people to come use these guns during competitions where a drop fire could cause injuries to others?

[00:24:15] Speaker 04:
Then the next thing I want to point out is when you talk about 10 and 11, 10 doesn't have you put the force of your finger on it as you're cycling back before you do the actual trigger safety reset test where you pull the sides of the trigger.

[00:24:28] Speaker 04:
When you look at the Derek Watkins Glocks expert

[00:24:31] Speaker 04:
performs a trigger safety test.

[00:24:34] Speaker 04:
He does that.

[00:24:35] Speaker 04:
He keeps his finger on it, slowly removes it, and then goes, failure.

[00:24:39] Speaker 04:
This is a failure.

[00:24:40] Speaker 04:
He identifies it.

[00:24:41] Speaker 04:
And that is because he's using what's in the armor's manual, which does tell you to put your finger on there, keep it on there, because that's the real life forces when you fire a gun.

[00:24:49] Speaker 04:
Your hand's going to be on there, and that additional force is going to cause the trigger safety to not move forward.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
But in this case, there's also a number 11, and there's no allegation that your client went forward and tested under safety check 11, right?

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
He did them as written, and 11 doesn't identify what you're a search for with Ford.

[00:25:14] Speaker 01:
I thought there was something in there.

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
No, he didn't.

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
There's no allegation that he did 11.

[00:25:17] Speaker 01:
There's an allegation he did 10.

[00:25:19] Speaker 04:
Well, 10 is the one regarding the trigger safety reset.

[00:25:22] Speaker 01:
OK, so my question is 11.

[00:25:23] Speaker 04:
He testified that he followed all of those instructions, yes.

[00:25:27] Speaker 04:
And he followed them as written, and that's what they're inadequate, because they're not written correctly.

[00:25:32] Speaker 04:
They don't tell you what forward means.

[00:25:34] Speaker 04:
In this situation, the trigger traveled forward, but not forward enough.

[00:25:38] Speaker 04:
So it allowed it to reset the trigger and did not allow the safety to reset.

[00:25:42] Speaker 00:
So I'm sorry, is your argument that instruction 10 is insufficient?

[00:25:47] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:25:47] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:25:49] Speaker 00:
So how are we to think about instruction 11, which seems to be

[00:25:53] Speaker 00:
supplying what you're looking for for instruction 10?

[00:25:57] Speaker 04:
Because it's again a sequencing issue.

[00:25:59] Speaker 04:
If you tell them to do it correctly and then tell them in 11 to pull the size of the trigger, then you are telling them how to check that the safety actually reset.

[00:26:08] Speaker 00:
So is it your position that it doesn't matter?

[00:26:11] Speaker 00:
Let's assume the record is clear, because I think it is, that your client didn't do the safety test 11.

[00:26:21] Speaker 00:
Your position is that

[00:26:22] Speaker 00:
that that doesn't matter because 10 was insufficient?

[00:26:26] Speaker 04:
Both are insufficient and he did do a lot.

[00:26:28] Speaker 04:
He did both of the tests.

[00:26:29] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:26:30] Speaker 01:
Well, that's how it was argued to the district court.

[00:26:35] Speaker 01:
It was argued that he only relied upon the instruction 10 to check the trigger safety, appendix volume 2 at 500.

[00:26:42] Speaker 04:
A user is instructed to follow number 10.

[00:26:46] Speaker 04:
He also did number 11, which is about the trigger reset, which is about whether the gun will fire again.

[00:26:51] Speaker 04:
It's a click in the middle of the gun.

[00:26:53] Speaker 04:
And yes, it talks about moving forward, but it doesn't say anything about ensure that the safety is there, ensure that it's moved fully forward, because it has to move fully forward in order for the safety to reset.

[00:27:04] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:27:06] Speaker 05:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:27:10] Speaker 05:
The case will be submitted.

[00:27:11] Speaker 05:
Thank you for the arguments.

[00:27:13] Speaker 05:
And the counsel are excused.