A police officer was shot in the back with his Glock 21 service weapon by his three-year-old son rendering him a paraplegic. The officer and his wife sued the manufacturers of the gun and holster alleging the gun has a light trigger pull without an appropriate safety mechanism to prevent accidental discharge and the holster fails to sufficiently protect the trigger or properly secure the gun. The trial court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The appellate court found the trial court erred because the defendants failed to carry their initial burden to demonstrate the officer cannot prove the lack of grip safety or the light trigger pull caused his injury. It further found there were triable issues of fact whether the officer’s causes of action are barred under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act [PLCAA; 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.] because there was a dispute whether or not the officer was using the gun in a manner consistent with his training to provide protection while he was off duty. Regarding the holster, the appellate court said plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact it was defective under either the risk-benefit test or the consumer expectation test, and that there are no triable issues of fact whether the holster caused the injuries. Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 7; July 24, 2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1283.