A new study in the raises serious questions about the safety of Tasers.

 

A recent article in the Arizona Republic raises questions about the safety of the Taser:

 

A new study has found that the type of Taser stun gun used most by police officers can fire more electricity than the company says is possible, which the study's authors say raises the risk of cardiac arrest as much as 50 percent in some people.

 

The study, led by a Montreal biomedical engineer and a U.S. defense contractor at the request of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., also concluded that even stun guns firing at expected electrical levels carry some risk of inducing a heart attack, depending on the circumstances.

 

The researchers' analysis contradicts Taser's position that electric shocks from the weapons cannot kill. The study said the results raise questions about quality control in the stun gun's manufacturing and decline in performance over time.

   

To read the full article, click

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/12/05/20081205taser1205.html

 

 

Seattle Taser Suit Moves Forward

The Court ruled that a lawsuit against the Seattle, Washington police for shooting a pregnant woman with a Taser for refusing to sign a traffic ticket could move forward to trial, rejecting the police officers’ motion for summary judgment.  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004474548_taser13m.html  This lawsuit is a similar to Federal case tried recently in federal court in Maine, in which the jury found a South Portland Police Officer liable for shooting a man with a Taser who had been pulled over for speeding and was arrested for Operating Under the Influence.

 

Taser Loses Product Liability Lawsuit

Taser Loses 1st Product-Liability Suit; Jury Awards $6 Million By Margaret Cronin Fisk June 7 (Bloomberg) -- Taser International Inc. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=TASR%3AUS <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=TASR%3AUS> , the largest stun-gun maker, lost a $6.2 million jury verdict over the death of a California man who died after police shot him multiple times with the weapon. The defeat is the first for Taser in a product- liability claim. A San Jose, California, jury yesterday said Taser had failed to warn
police in Salinas, California, that prolonged exposure to electric shock from the device could cause a risk of cardiac arrest. The jury awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $5.2 million in punitive damages to the estate of Robert Heston, 40, and his parents. The jury cleared
the police officers of any liability. The lawsuit is Heston v. City of Salinas, C 05-03658 JW, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

Section 1981: Retaliation Claims

The Supreme Court held today that 42 USC Section 1981, which provides that "[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens,” applies to retaliation claim arising out of a complaint that another’s protected contract right was impaired.

First Circuit: Reverses On 1983 Patronage Dismissal Case

The First Circuit yesterday in Lopez-Quinones v. Puerto Rico National reversed a decision of the District Court in Puerto Rico and held that individual defendants were immune from suit under Section 1983 for a claim by a former director of the general services section of the Puerto Rico National Guard who claimed he was dismissed because of his political party affiliation.  See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=docket&no=071976

 

The First Circuit (Boudin, J.) found that the job termination violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights because the job did not involve policy-making judgments which are inherently political.   However, it found the individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity, because a reasonable person could have believed (albeit mistakenly) that it was permissible to use political affiliation as a job qualification. 

 

Judge Torruella dissented on the grounds that political discrimination claims are common in Puerto Rico, and therefore the governing administration would have been on notice that any politically-based termination must be scrutinized to determine whether political affiliation is significant in the type of job at issue.  Here, Judge Torruella argued, no reasonable person could have believed that the plaintiff’s job – which essentially consisted of supervising a large a janitorial staff – was in any way political.