Loyola law professor Blaine LeCesne weighed in on the question of liability. Could a citizen be found legally responsible in a lawsuit that stemmed from a victim injured by a gun stolen from an unlocked car or a vehicle taken after the keys were left inside?
If the gun is used to intentionally commit a crime, to kill or injure someone, the court will not impose civil liability on the gun owner for the acts of a third person. Again, under the proximate cause doctrine, the actions of the thief would supersede the negligence of the gun owner, cutting off his liability, LeCesne said.
The courts, he said, generally view the shooting another person as unforeseeable act for a lawful gun owner who simply forgot to secure their weapon. "It's unfair and unjust to hold that person responsible," LeCesne said.
But a gun owner could find him or herself in court if the stolen gun is negligently discharged. LeCesne described it as any subsequent use of the gun that injures because of lack of reasonable care: sticky-fingered kids goofing around, someone picking up the weapon and accidently pulling the trigger or a fumbling thief who doesn't know how to use a gun.
The question is whether the gun owner could have reasonably foreseen that the weapon could accidently harm someone if left unsecured. It's similar to leaving a gun lying around in the open. "It's more likely or more foreseeable that that kind of action could happen," LeCesne said.
But many other variables would come into play if the courts attempt to decide legal responsibility. Was the gun left in a place where it was easily accessible to be stolen? Was it in a car in front of the gun owner's house? Was it in a very high crime area or across the street from a school?
In short, if the gun is used negligently, a gun owner may end up in court. But if the gun is used intentionally and criminally, the owner isn't responsible.
The short answer is "no." That's not the issue being addressed in Heller and would have no bearing on a negligence claim based on some unauthorized person getting access to an unsecured gun.ShootistPRS said:Didn't the supreme court rule in DC V Heller that guns kept in the home didn't have to be secured because the self defense rule meant the gun had to be in usable condition and easily accessible?...
Which is somewhat inconsistent with what the Montana appellate court said in Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995) regarding the standard of care with respect to the storage of a firearm (see post 10).45_auto said:Anyone know of any actual cases where the owner of a stolen handgun was charged when it was used in a crime?
Loyola Law Professor discusses theft of a gun from an unsecured car in Louisiana here:...
Really? Can you cite some actual law on point, or are you just making stuff up?ShootistPRS said:There is the fact that the gun was in a home. As long as the home was locked up the gun was inherently locked up as well. There is no room for negligence in that case.....
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
.... Stolen and used intentionally in a crime? Where does negligence come to play in the purposeful use of deadly force?...
Berserker said:Going to tell me some breaks in stieals my booze, drives off and kills someone I am going to prison?...
Bill DeShivs said:....An attorney would attempt to make you liable in any way possible if he were representing someone suing you.
And, if he's slick enough-he just might convince a jury of idiots that you are liable....
The fact that you think it's wrong is irrelevant. Your opinion of the system doesn't change anything.Bill DeShivs said:....I know how the system works-and often times it's just plain wrong.