Gustafson v. Springfield: Pennsylvania court rules PLCAA unconstitutional
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
Spats McGee
Administrator
I think it's even worse than that. The panel knew that a lawsuit for a defective product is an exemption to the protections provided by the PLCAA. It could have ruled that the lack of magazine defect was at least arguably a design defect and that the manufacturer was thus not protected by it. By doing so, it could have avoided reaching the constitutional issue. This would have complied with the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. As we knowit went ahead and found the statute unconstitutional.
Thomas Clarke
New member
Responsibility for Killing
Aquila, I have no idea how old you are. I am 68. I am a Second Amendment supporter. I am not a lawyer but am a retired Executive with a Masters degree. I have been shooting for 60 years. I started shooting under the direction of my father. I started at age 8. I had access and usage of .22 S/LR ammunition, rifles and pistols by age 10. I started hunting squirrels and rabbits at age 12 with .410 single shot. I began dove and upland birds with a 12 gauge at age 14. I served in Vietnam as an MP. You seem a bit judgmental since you do not know me.
When I was a kid it was OK to bring your guns to school for show and tell and to take them home to hunt on the way home. Nobody said a thing. My father helped me with my first purchases until I passed the NRA tests for hunting. My LGS sold me my ammunition and my guns with the full knowledge of my Dad. I earned my own money and paid for the guns and ammo. Nothing was given to me. That was normal then.
I live in a state that has lots of restrictions on guns and usage. I just follow the rules. I shoot flintlocks and cannons on my property now. I have attended rendezvous for fifty years. I am glad you teach and are active teaching. You may want to pull back the opinions when you do not know what you are talking about. But now you do.
What I thought you understood, but clearly do not, is that the 13 year old is responsible for taking a life. His surviving buddy is just as responsible as he was. Both are juveniles and subject to juvenile law. I seriously doubt that Pennsylvania thinks it is OK for boys to act so poorly. Their parents are not juveniles and they need to be held fully accountable for the actions of their sons. They were responsible for their children and should pay the price, both criminal and civil and should held before the bar of justice in Pennsylvania. The manufacturer of the firearms should not be held responsible. I am sure you believe that people kill people. Too many times guns are used, giving those of us who are responsible gun users a bad name.
Remember that if you are in the bank robbers car, you have some criminal liability for the bank robbery, especially when a death occurs. The Civil Remedies need to be brought forward by the surviving family against the killers. That is why there are courts. The parents need to pay the heavy punitive price for the taking of a life, both through the criminal courts and civil. The price to be paid is equal to the life of the young man taken by the child.
Aquila, I have no idea how old you are. I am 68. I am a Second Amendment supporter. I am not a lawyer but am a retired Executive with a Masters degree. I have been shooting for 60 years. I started shooting under the direction of my father. I started at age 8. I had access and usage of .22 S/LR ammunition, rifles and pistols by age 10. I started hunting squirrels and rabbits at age 12 with .410 single shot. I began dove and upland birds with a 12 gauge at age 14. I served in Vietnam as an MP. You seem a bit judgmental since you do not know me.
When I was a kid it was OK to bring your guns to school for show and tell and to take them home to hunt on the way home. Nobody said a thing. My father helped me with my first purchases until I passed the NRA tests for hunting. My LGS sold me my ammunition and my guns with the full knowledge of my Dad. I earned my own money and paid for the guns and ammo. Nothing was given to me. That was normal then.
I live in a state that has lots of restrictions on guns and usage. I just follow the rules. I shoot flintlocks and cannons on my property now. I have attended rendezvous for fifty years. I am glad you teach and are active teaching. You may want to pull back the opinions when you do not know what you are talking about. But now you do.
What I thought you understood, but clearly do not, is that the 13 year old is responsible for taking a life. His surviving buddy is just as responsible as he was. Both are juveniles and subject to juvenile law. I seriously doubt that Pennsylvania thinks it is OK for boys to act so poorly. Their parents are not juveniles and they need to be held fully accountable for the actions of their sons. They were responsible for their children and should pay the price, both criminal and civil and should held before the bar of justice in Pennsylvania. The manufacturer of the firearms should not be held responsible. I am sure you believe that people kill people. Too many times guns are used, giving those of us who are responsible gun users a bad name.
Remember that if you are in the bank robbers car, you have some criminal liability for the bank robbery, especially when a death occurs. The Civil Remedies need to be brought forward by the surviving family against the killers. That is why there are courts. The parents need to pay the heavy punitive price for the taking of a life, both through the criminal courts and civil. The price to be paid is equal to the life of the young man taken by the child.
Not to but in here "but" if there is no law specifying a crime how can one be held "criminally" liable ? I don't know the law there but if the parents did not commit a crime , it's pretty hard to charge them with one . Just a reminder as I understand laws , They are not made to prevent something from happening . They are there so the government can charge you and put you in jail for violating such laws . Did the other boy and all parents involved commit "moral crimes" that if they would have put a little more thought in storing the firearm , and teaching there kids maybe none of this would have happened ? I think yes but morality or lack there of is not a crime , likely because morals are quite subjective . I'm sure ISIS fighters feel quite morally superior while cutting peoples heads off or parents that feel not spanking there kids is a moral act . Yes to the extremes those are but my point is that morality is simply an opinion one has based on there experiences .
Now civil liability is a whole other ball game . Thomas , If you were to remove criminal from most of what you were saying , I'd agree with just about everything you wrote but have to agree with Aguila as far as criminal liability depending on the specific laws . but hey I'm only 50 so what do I know
With respect
MG
Now civil liability is a whole other ball game . Thomas , If you were to remove criminal from most of what you were saying , I'd agree with just about everything you wrote but have to agree with Aguila as far as criminal liability depending on the specific laws . but hey I'm only 50 so what do I know
With respect
MG
We disagree on some points. I feel there is NO price equal to the life of the victim. I also disagree on how far criminal responsibility should go.
I do not consider it justice when a juvenile gets a short sentence in juvenile custody and their parents are excessively punished. Though the law often takes that approach.
I do not think it right to hold parents criminally responsible for criminal acts committed by their children when those children are doing so via the exercise of their own free will, and in defiance of what they have been trained and taught.
Children do that, you know, no amount of holding the parents responsible overcomes the child's individual willful acts.
I can see the logic and the effectiveness of holding parents responsible and punishing them for some things their child might do, to encourage other parents to avoid those errors and their punishments.
But, when it comes to a person pointing a gun at another person and pulling the trigger, no parent, school, church or even the Lord above is responsible for that, ONLY the person pulling the trigger.
It is always about only that, and it should always be only about that. Anything else is someone's idea of shifting blame, or at worst making money over someone's suffering.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I have about a decade on you, but our age doesn't matter here. I fully understand that a 13-year old is responsible for the death of another child. I don't think that's in dispute. I am not a lawyer and I am not a resident of Pennsylvania, so I'm not up on Pennsylvania law. According to your link, the charge the shooter was convicted of was involuntary manslaughter. And involuntary manslaughter is a criminal offense under the laws on Pennsylvania, as it is in my state.Thomas Clarke said:
So that makes the 13-year old kid who pulled the trigger a criminal.
In general, parents of minor children are responsible for the acts of their children. But under the law, as we saw in the case of OJ Simpson, there's criminal guilt and then there's civil liability. Remember, OJ was found NOT guilty of murder, but he was also found liable in civil court for wrongful death (or something like that).
So I think the parents of the kid who pulled the trigger could very well be liable -- in monetary terms -- for the negligent act of their child. That doesn't make them criminals. Unless you can cite a Pennsylavia law that says the parents of a child who commits a criminal act without the parents' knowledge or consent are themselves guilty of a crime, you are off-base in labeling the parents of the kid who pulled the trigger as criminals.
And then there's the third kid. I'm not even sure he's guilty of any criminal charge. What criminal law did he break? And what Pennsylvania criminal law did his parents break?
If you can't cite a criminal law the parents broke, then calling them criminals is a libelous statement. What are your citations?
One of the advantages I have as an attorney is knowing that there is a lot I don't know about areas in which I don't regularly practice, even in my own state. Normal people, i.e. not attorneys, often approach criminal law with a general sense of moral intuition. However, that isn't how adjudication routinely works.
Emphasis added. Explaining each of those terms exhaustively might be worth a book. It isn't "OK" for boys to go through someone else's guns, but that isn't a crime so far as I can tell. Are you "just as responsible" if you are in the presence of a friend who negligently discharges a firearm? What does holding a parent "fully accountable" look like?
I think many of us agree on this point.
I believe you are referring to accessory liability, the liability one has for the result of a plan to commit a crime in which one participates. This is one that most people have a hard time getting their hands around just using their general intuition. "I was the driver and the plan was just to take the money" still leaves one exposed to prosecution for the homicide committed by a co-conspirator during the act. One wasn't just in the car, but was a participant in an underlying criminal act.
In this case, the friend wasn't a likely accessory because there wasn't a planned underlying crime.
Thomas Clarke said:
Emphasis added. Explaining each of those terms exhaustively might be worth a book. It isn't "OK" for boys to go through someone else's guns, but that isn't a crime so far as I can tell. Are you "just as responsible" if you are in the presence of a friend who negligently discharges a firearm? What does holding a parent "fully accountable" look like?
Thomas Clarke said:
I think many of us agree on this point.
Thomas Clarke said:
I believe you are referring to accessory liability, the liability one has for the result of a plan to commit a crime in which one participates. This is one that most people have a hard time getting their hands around just using their general intuition. "I was the driver and the plan was just to take the money" still leaves one exposed to prosecution for the homicide committed by a co-conspirator during the act. One wasn't just in the car, but was a participant in an underlying criminal act.
In this case, the friend wasn't a likely accessory because there wasn't a planned underlying crime.
Last edited:
Thomas Clarke
New member
Zukiphile, I had to look up your name. I found this definition quickly "A person who reads disagreement and reacts by seeking to exclude the expression of other views admits his own insufficiency. - Zukiphile" It is very apt, I applaud you. You post actively where I surf, but I have not commented on your posts, as there is no point.
You are the lawyer, I am not. Are you licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania? If not, you may want to consider adding a disclaimer, in order to avoid the inference of providing legal advice, as others do in this forum.
I think everything in your post is agreeable and accurate. I chose the two examples of accountability carefully, with full understanding that these are terms of law and not general knowledge. I am familiar with the legal definition which does not need to be explained here. Pennsylvania law may support the differing interpretations than what I urge. I am not in the Keystone State.
Parents should be held fully accountable to the law for the actions of their minor children. There may not be criminal law in Pennsylvania to support that which is OK for Pennsylvania. There may not be civil law and a tort process in Pennsylvania to hold the parents responsible for the actions of their children. I think that the addition of these will improve the quality of life for Pennsylvanians if applied.
The actions of accessory liability are dependent on the criminal law relating to the charges. Your argument is on point if there are no criminal charges. I was not referring to accessory liability, but that is because I am not a lawyer. What I was referring to is the fact that parents in many places believe that they get a pass if their dependent children perform badly. I cannot speak to Pennsylvania as a state, but I believe that children should not be allowed to act unless their parents are held responsible as adults for their actions. If your kids do something stupid, act poorly, cause a firearm discharge or other unfortunate acts that damage or kill others outside the family, then you the parents need to pay the price. You the adult do not get the pass. The price is not just defined by law, but I think it should be.
And yes, I have children, both sons and daughters. All are grown, all fully adults, all fully emancipated, and all self sufficient. They do not live at home or receive aid from Dad. If they err, they pay the price, be it criminal or civil. I think that is how it should be, though I recognize that it is not in so many places. As an example, look at the facts of this case and the actions of both the readers of this blog and the authorities.
You are the lawyer, I am not. Are you licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania? If not, you may want to consider adding a disclaimer, in order to avoid the inference of providing legal advice, as others do in this forum.
I think everything in your post is agreeable and accurate. I chose the two examples of accountability carefully, with full understanding that these are terms of law and not general knowledge. I am familiar with the legal definition which does not need to be explained here. Pennsylvania law may support the differing interpretations than what I urge. I am not in the Keystone State.
Parents should be held fully accountable to the law for the actions of their minor children. There may not be criminal law in Pennsylvania to support that which is OK for Pennsylvania. There may not be civil law and a tort process in Pennsylvania to hold the parents responsible for the actions of their children. I think that the addition of these will improve the quality of life for Pennsylvanians if applied.
The actions of accessory liability are dependent on the criminal law relating to the charges. Your argument is on point if there are no criminal charges. I was not referring to accessory liability, but that is because I am not a lawyer. What I was referring to is the fact that parents in many places believe that they get a pass if their dependent children perform badly. I cannot speak to Pennsylvania as a state, but I believe that children should not be allowed to act unless their parents are held responsible as adults for their actions. If your kids do something stupid, act poorly, cause a firearm discharge or other unfortunate acts that damage or kill others outside the family, then you the parents need to pay the price. You the adult do not get the pass. The price is not just defined by law, but I think it should be.
And yes, I have children, both sons and daughters. All are grown, all fully adults, all fully emancipated, and all self sufficient. They do not live at home or receive aid from Dad. If they err, they pay the price, be it criminal or civil. I think that is how it should be, though I recognize that it is not in so many places. As an example, look at the facts of this case and the actions of both the readers of this blog and the authorities.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Mr. Clarke, I find it ironic that you accuse me of being judgmental, when it is you who labeled the parents (both the parents whose firearm was involved and the parents of the boy who pulled the trigger) as criminals, yet when I asked for citations of what criminal law they might have violated you didn't offer anything in response.
To recap:
Let's say, hypothetically, that I agree with you -- the parents who owned the firearm and the parents of the boy who pulled the trigger should be subject to the fullest extent of criminal law in Pennsylvania. It does not appear that there are any criminal laws that they broke, so their being subject to the full extent of the law amounts to nothing. Yet you labeled them "criminals." That's irresponsuible and libelous.
Do you accept that, or do you still want to label the parents as "criminals"? If so, then it is up to you to cite the criminal statute(s) they broke.
To recap:
Thomas Clarke said:
Let's say, hypothetically, that I agree with you -- the parents who owned the firearm and the parents of the boy who pulled the trigger should be subject to the fullest extent of criminal law in Pennsylvania. It does not appear that there are any criminal laws that they broke, so their being subject to the full extent of the law amounts to nothing. Yet you labeled them "criminals." That's irresponsuible and libelous.
Once again, let's say I agree that the parents should be fully accountable under the law for the negligent actions of their child. And the owners of the gun should be fully accountable under the law for having allowed the children to access the firearm. And, again, it appears that the law doesn't include any statutes that either set of parents violated. If that is the case, then the "full extent of the criminal law" is ... nothing.ThomasClarke said:
Do you accept that, or do you still want to label the parents as "criminals"? If so, then it is up to you to cite the criminal statute(s) they broke.
There are a number of "traps" in our language, words that carry connotations beyond their strict dictionary definitions (an even the dictionaries will tell you that their definitions are what is "in common use").
Adding to the potential for confusion is the fact that words and phrases used in casual conversation, and having a commonly understood definition can have a different definition in law. And, further adding to the fun, the fact that many of us are (or get) 'sloppy" with our words and terms.
One of the "trap" words, we all use all the time is "allow".
My American Heritage Dictionary defines "allow" as "to make do or happen; permit".
So, to allow something to happen is to permit it to happen. And that's where things start getting confusing. What does it mean that you "permit" something to happen? Everyone seems to take differing meanings from that simple phrase.
First point, many people will assume that if you "permit" something to happen, that means you approve it it happening. After all, if you didn't approve, why would you permit it???
Next point, "permitting" something to happen, means what? That you didn't do anything to stop it happening? OR that you didn't do ENOUGH (in some third party's judgement) to prevent it happening?? Or that you did, and failed?
A very common phrase, but is it actually accurate? And, what does it mean in law? We say things like "by doing/not doing A, you allowed B to happen.."
"allow" also can carry the impression that what was "allowed" was approved and endorsed". This is simply not always the case.
There are cases where people are said to have "allowed" something even when there was no possible way of stopping it.
In the shooting under discussion, we don't have the exact details of how the gun owner "allowed" the child to access a loaded pistol. The fact that it happened "allows" us to slap the label "he allowed it to happen" on the matter, but tells us nothing else.
IF the gun owner took what he considered the prudent steps, was he negligent because the kid got the gun anyway? Were those steps (if done) something required by law? Or just what the rest of us would consider common sense? IF there was no law to comply with, stating specifically what was required, then there can be no criminal violation.
One can be morally, and civilly responsible, and may be legally liable and accountable, but if no law was broken, one cannot be criminally liable.
Adding to the potential for confusion is the fact that words and phrases used in casual conversation, and having a commonly understood definition can have a different definition in law. And, further adding to the fun, the fact that many of us are (or get) 'sloppy" with our words and terms.
One of the "trap" words, we all use all the time is "allow".
My American Heritage Dictionary defines "allow" as "to make do or happen; permit".
So, to allow something to happen is to permit it to happen. And that's where things start getting confusing. What does it mean that you "permit" something to happen? Everyone seems to take differing meanings from that simple phrase.
First point, many people will assume that if you "permit" something to happen, that means you approve it it happening. After all, if you didn't approve, why would you permit it???
Next point, "permitting" something to happen, means what? That you didn't do anything to stop it happening? OR that you didn't do ENOUGH (in some third party's judgement) to prevent it happening?? Or that you did, and failed?
A very common phrase, but is it actually accurate? And, what does it mean in law? We say things like "by doing/not doing A, you allowed B to happen.."
"allow" also can carry the impression that what was "allowed" was approved and endorsed". This is simply not always the case.
There are cases where people are said to have "allowed" something even when there was no possible way of stopping it.
In the shooting under discussion, we don't have the exact details of how the gun owner "allowed" the child to access a loaded pistol. The fact that it happened "allows" us to slap the label "he allowed it to happen" on the matter, but tells us nothing else.
IF the gun owner took what he considered the prudent steps, was he negligent because the kid got the gun anyway? Were those steps (if done) something required by law? Or just what the rest of us would consider common sense? IF there was no law to comply with, stating specifically what was required, then there can be no criminal violation.
One can be morally, and civilly responsible, and may be legally liable and accountable, but if no law was broken, one cannot be criminally liable.
Thomas Clarke
New member
To Allow or Permit
44 AMP, you are correct and I agree with every point you made. If there are no criminal laws governing the shooting by firearm of a juvenile by another juvenile then there is no crime. That means that there are no criminals here. I do believe that the moral and civil wrongs which are stem from the actions by the juveniles should be subject to review by the authorities.
If the juvenile obtained the loaded firearm despite the parent's most prudent actions I would argue that the thing speaks for itself. But that may not apply to Pennsylvania law. There may in fact not be criminal or civil laws governing firearm discharges by juveniles in Pennsylvania resulting in death and/or dismemberment. I would hope that at the very least there were laws governing the casual shooting of non-humans by juveniles. I hope that we value human life at least as much as animals, but perhaps that is not the case in Pennsylvania.
White Eagle, I can cite no laws for you as there is apparently no law in Pennsylvania covering the circumstances. So those involved have violated no apparent laws. So you are right that they are not criminals.
As to whether my statements are irresponsible and slanderous, I do not think that that is so, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. It is very hard to slander or libel someone if what is said is true.
I have followed your many posts, and commented on very few. I suspect that we likely agree on many things. Perhaps not. I do believe that the collapse of responsible parenting and the family over our lifetimes is the cause of much of the damage to our society. it is as though the moral compass of a life well lived has been left to those with little skin in the game.
44 AMP, you are correct and I agree with every point you made. If there are no criminal laws governing the shooting by firearm of a juvenile by another juvenile then there is no crime. That means that there are no criminals here. I do believe that the moral and civil wrongs which are stem from the actions by the juveniles should be subject to review by the authorities.
If the juvenile obtained the loaded firearm despite the parent's most prudent actions I would argue that the thing speaks for itself. But that may not apply to Pennsylvania law. There may in fact not be criminal or civil laws governing firearm discharges by juveniles in Pennsylvania resulting in death and/or dismemberment. I would hope that at the very least there were laws governing the casual shooting of non-humans by juveniles. I hope that we value human life at least as much as animals, but perhaps that is not the case in Pennsylvania.
White Eagle, I can cite no laws for you as there is apparently no law in Pennsylvania covering the circumstances. So those involved have violated no apparent laws. So you are right that they are not criminals.
As to whether my statements are irresponsible and slanderous, I do not think that that is so, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. It is very hard to slander or libel someone if what is said is true.
I have followed your many posts, and commented on very few. I suspect that we likely agree on many things. Perhaps not. I do believe that the collapse of responsible parenting and the family over our lifetimes is the cause of much of the damage to our society. it is as though the moral compass of a life well lived has been left to those with little skin in the game.
1. If there are laws making it illegal for a juvenile to possess a firearm then there would be a crime.
2. If there are laws making it illegal to not secure a firearm to prevent access and those laws were not followed then there would be a crime.
3. If there are laws making the discharge of firearms a crime under certain circumstances and those laws were broken then there would be a crime.
And so on, etc.
In short, there could be any number of ways for a crime to be committed even without there being an actual law against one juvenile shooting another with a firearm. One can't simply look at the most obvious "problem" and assume that if there's no law explicitly addressing it then everything is fine. It's far more complicated than that. That is why there are people who specialize in that field and why their services tend to be very expensive.
Homicides are covered under Title 18 in PA's code. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=25
I would assume that is the most important one for the criminal act portion...
I would assume that is the most important one for the criminal act portion...
Spats McGee
Administrator
I see a whole lot of discussion about the parents' liability in this one, both civil and criminal. And the answer to the age-old question of how one eats an elephant is, of course, "one bite at a time." So let's break this down. Liability falls into two general categories: (1) criminal; and (b) civil.
Criminal liability: There were some statements in this thread that the actual (juvenile) shooter's parents are 'criminals.' I would ask, "For what?" In the absence of a statute criminalizing some action or omission on the part of those particular parents, how can they be 'criminals?' According to the decision linked in Post #1, the decedent and a 14-y.o. friend visited a third friend, and that the third friend: (a) was the child of the firearm owner; and (b) shot the decedent. For purposes of criminal liability, exactly what actions or omissions were taken by the shooter's parents that might render them criminally liable? Here are some examples:
With that said, let's turn to civil liability. The first question with regards to the parents is "what liability do the parents have for the torts of their children?" At common law, the answer is generally, "none," or perhaps more accurately, "none, based solely on the parent-child relationship." Generally, the list I made above might provide some basis for arguing that the parents were negligent. However, the law recognizes that even when a parent does everything right, a minor child may go off and do things on his or her own. (Funny thing about kids, that ....) To put it in terms of PA law: "Ordinarily, '[t]he mere relation of parent and child imposes no liability upon the parent for the torts of the child.'.... Parents, however, are not always insulated from liability for tortious acts of their children. 'Parents may be liable ... where negligence on the part of the parents makes the injury possible.'" Keener v. Hribal, 351 F. Supp. 3d 956, 965 (W.D. Pa. 2018)(internal citation omitted).
The common law in PA, however, has been modified or supplanted by statute. "Any parent whose child is found liable or is adjudged guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction of a tortious act shall be liable to the person who suffers the injury to the extent set forth in this chapter." 23 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5502 (West). It would appear that there is a basis for come kind of civil liability on the part of the parents, at least at first blush. That said, I don't see any reported decisions under this statute since 1993. The statute was enacted in 1990, and the 1993 decision is the only one. I suspect that if push came to shove (a trial), counsel for the defense would argue that the statute did not displace this little tidbit of common law: "Perhaps many of the harsh results sometimes associated with the imputation of contributory negligence can be attributed to our mistaken assumption that a principal is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his agent. We therefore now state unequivocally that only a master-servant relationship or a finding of a joint enterprise will justify an imputation of contributory negligence." Burton v. Althoff, 64 Pa. D. & C.2d 366, 368 (Pa. Com. Pl. 1973)(emphasis supplied)
So using negligence as our guideline (and I'll wing it here: Generally speaking, negligence may be defined as, "an act or omission that a reasonably prudent person would not have done under the circumstances."), what did the parents do or omit that might be considered negligent?
Criminal liability: There were some statements in this thread that the actual (juvenile) shooter's parents are 'criminals.' I would ask, "For what?" In the absence of a statute criminalizing some action or omission on the part of those particular parents, how can they be 'criminals?' According to the decision linked in Post #1, the decedent and a 14-y.o. friend visited a third friend, and that the third friend: (a) was the child of the firearm owner; and (b) shot the decedent. For purposes of criminal liability, exactly what actions or omissions were taken by the shooter's parents that might render them criminally liable? Here are some examples:
- Allowing a teenage child to have friends over unsupervised? (Assuming the boy even had permission?)
- Failure to secure the firearm?
- Failure to properly warn the child that the pistol would fire with the mag removed?
- Failure to properly train the minor in safe gun handling?
With that said, let's turn to civil liability. The first question with regards to the parents is "what liability do the parents have for the torts of their children?" At common law, the answer is generally, "none," or perhaps more accurately, "none, based solely on the parent-child relationship." Generally, the list I made above might provide some basis for arguing that the parents were negligent. However, the law recognizes that even when a parent does everything right, a minor child may go off and do things on his or her own. (Funny thing about kids, that ....) To put it in terms of PA law: "Ordinarily, '[t]he mere relation of parent and child imposes no liability upon the parent for the torts of the child.'.... Parents, however, are not always insulated from liability for tortious acts of their children. 'Parents may be liable ... where negligence on the part of the parents makes the injury possible.'" Keener v. Hribal, 351 F. Supp. 3d 956, 965 (W.D. Pa. 2018)(internal citation omitted).
The common law in PA, however, has been modified or supplanted by statute. "Any parent whose child is found liable or is adjudged guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction of a tortious act shall be liable to the person who suffers the injury to the extent set forth in this chapter." 23 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5502 (West). It would appear that there is a basis for come kind of civil liability on the part of the parents, at least at first blush. That said, I don't see any reported decisions under this statute since 1993. The statute was enacted in 1990, and the 1993 decision is the only one. I suspect that if push came to shove (a trial), counsel for the defense would argue that the statute did not displace this little tidbit of common law: "Perhaps many of the harsh results sometimes associated with the imputation of contributory negligence can be attributed to our mistaken assumption that a principal is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his agent. We therefore now state unequivocally that only a master-servant relationship or a finding of a joint enterprise will justify an imputation of contributory negligence." Burton v. Althoff, 64 Pa. D. & C.2d 366, 368 (Pa. Com. Pl. 1973)(emphasis supplied)
So using negligence as our guideline (and I'll wing it here: Generally speaking, negligence may be defined as, "an act or omission that a reasonably prudent person would not have done under the circumstances."), what did the parents do or omit that might be considered negligent?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
But the kid who pulled the trigger has already pleaded guilty to a criminal charge (under that statute, no doubt) and has been sentenced. What's being discussed now is whether or not either the adult(s) who owned the gun and/or the parents of the kid who pulled the trigger have any criminal liability for the kid's negligent act. The kid was convicted of the charge of involuntary manslaughter. There is nothing in the statute you cited, and particularly in the section on involuntary manslaughter, that talks about the parents of minor children who commit criminal acts.raimius said:
I didn't see that in the link in post#1. I saw this..
No mention of a 3rd friend (son of homeowner or not). No mention of the circumstances of how the 14yr old friend obtained the homeowner's pistol.
This is somewhat understandable as the linked document is very narrow in scope, covering only the legal aspects of the appeal and not aspects of the crime. The court document also said this..
Information about if there was a 3rd person there, and what the circumstances were leading up to the fatal shot are not in the document linked to in post#1.
It seems that the appeal panel made no effort to determine what the FACTS in the case actually were. They specifically state that they are taking the Gustafson's allegations at face value, as true, which is all they need do for the purpose of ruling on the appeal.
The ONLY thing the court was ruling on, in this specific matter was not who was responsible, or to what degree, but only if using the PLCAA as a defense was sufficient to allow the trial court judge to dismiss the case.
They ruled it was not. As for the rest, we're now into wait and see territory, until, unless the original case moves forward.
corneileous
New member
So let me get this straight; this is about where somebody tried to sue a gun manufacturer because the company that made the handgun that somebody accidentally killed somebody was because the gun did not have a magazine disconnect, and they thought the gun was safe after they ejected the magazine out of it? My other question would be what does the 10th amendment have to do with this? Oh and well I might add, I’m not really understanding what the 10th amendment even is.
I’m sure there’s others but so far the only pistol I’ve ever had that had a magazine disconnect was a Ruger LC9S. Of course, that’s only on the non-pro model. The pro model doesn’t have that but it also doesn’t have a slide-mounted safety either.
All of my other handguns will fire whenever a round is in the chamber whether a magazine is inserted or not. But, they all say that on the side of the slide. Did this gun that was used, not say that?
But then again, I just pulled out my Springfield XDE and gave a look at it and it of course, it doesn’t say that anywhere on the side of the pistol. I’m assuming that’s because it has a spring powered pop-up loaded chamber indicator? Does the pistol in this case not have that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m sure there’s others but so far the only pistol I’ve ever had that had a magazine disconnect was a Ruger LC9S. Of course, that’s only on the non-pro model. The pro model doesn’t have that but it also doesn’t have a slide-mounted safety either.
All of my other handguns will fire whenever a round is in the chamber whether a magazine is inserted or not. But, they all say that on the side of the slide. Did this gun that was used, not say that?
But then again, I just pulled out my Springfield XDE and gave a look at it and it of course, it doesn’t say that anywhere on the side of the pistol. I’m assuming that’s because it has a spring powered pop-up loaded chamber indicator? Does the pistol in this case not have that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Spats McGee
Administrator
44 AMP, you're absolutely right. I read "....On March 20, 2016, J.R. Gustafson and his 14-year-old friend visited a Westmoreland County home owned by Joshua Hudec...." and I assumed that there was another friend involved. After all, why would two teenage boys go visit Hudec's home, unless Hudec had a son that they wanted to visit. After all, the decision doesn't say that they broke in, so presumably they had permission from someone to be there. It also does not state that the 'friend' was Hudec's child. So what were they doing there? That said, the decision does not actually mention this fictitious third person I imagined.
It makes it a little more puzzling to me, but thanks for the correction.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Yeah, that's pretty much the Readers' Digest version.
Congress & the federal government have the power to regulate interstate commerce.
But the 10th Amendment limits this, at least in theory, and it often comes up in States' rights discussions.
So the question for this case was whether the fact that the pistol moved in or affected interstate commerce (however far back and however remotely) gives Congress a solid basis for the PLCAA to shield the manufacturer from this lawsuit.
corneileous
New member
Hmm. Well, I don’t see how this is the fault of the manufacturer. I’m not sure which XD pistol this is but don’t they have the loaded chamber indicator on top of the slide? If it’s one of the striker fired pistols, don’t they also have on the back of the slide, that little pin that protrudes out if the striker is cocked?
Thank you for your explanation of the 10th amendment – even though I’m still kind of fuzzy on what it is and how it has anything to do with this but still, I still just don’t see how these people can come back and blame the handgun manufacturer because not all handguns are made the same. To me, this would be no different from somebody trying to sue Glock for not having a slide mounted safety or for not having the grip safety. Or like trying to say there’s a set standard on how hot coffee should be that’s sold at a fast food restaurant… LOL. Well, I’m sure after that lady sued McDonald’s, there probably is now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk