Sue cities for being unsafe?

B

bestdefense357

New member
What if gunowners in each city that is suing gun manufacturers take that city to court for being unsafe?

Take New Orleans, for instance. What if a group of gunowners who live in NO filed a class-action suit against the Big Easy for being unsafe. Admittedly, the suit would be crazy, but so is NO's suit against gun manufacturers.

A good lawyer could eat the city alive.
How many people die in auto accidents in NO each year? Uh-oh--the roads are unsafe. How many citizens die in swimming pool accidents each year? Uh-oh--the zoning regs aren't up to snuff. How many women were murdered by the serial killer who has killed at least 25 in the last couple of years? Uh-oh--the police department is incompetent.

You get the picture. The funny is thing is that in this day of absurd lawsuits, the gun owners might win.

Robert
 
I wonder if it would be possible to find someone who applied for and was denied a permit to own a gun, and then was attacked and injured, in his or her own home. Then there would be a real victim, not just a theory, and the city could be sued for failing to protect the people and then not allowing the people to protect themselves.

Trouble is that I doubt such a person could be found.

Jim
 
A cause of action may rest in either a classical tort claim (not applicable here) or negligence. Here, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the city had a duty to protect said plaintiff, was negligent in protecting said plaintiff, that such negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, and that plaintiff suffered a harm arising from the negligent actions of defendant city.

So, how does one demonstrate negligence. The plaintiff could attempt to prove there was a statutorily imposed duty which made the city responsible for plaintiff's safety. No state has ever enacted such a law. The plaintiff could attempt to prove that (s)he stood in "special relationship" with the City such that the City was responsible for the well being of the plaintiff. This can arise in a custody situation. But our plaintiff isn't incarcerated!

Face it, there have been numerous lawsuits by individuals who were seriously hurt when the police failed to respond in a timely manner to their "911" call. Even a person who has been victimized by the same assailant and has a restraining order on file at the local police station does not stand in special relationship to the City.

Short of standing in a landlord-tenant relationship where the city is the landlord of the crime ridden building in which you live, (Landlords have a duty to make the common areas safe), you can't sue a City because it's unsafe.


------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
I don't doubt at all that such a person could be found - and, I'll bet our friend, TFL member and author Robert Waters would know how to find them ...
 
I'd hate to see it happen. If the city lost, it would turn around and make safe all those unsafe situations. Like shut down the roads, outlaw swimming pools, etc. There's no telling what kind of silly restrictions a city might place on people in order to protect them.
 
In the course of my foaming rant, I forgot to mention that there have been rapes or deaths following a slow response to "911". Naturally, lawsuits followed (in the case of the death, for wrongful death) and defendant cities were not held liable.

Nor is any liability imposed by the customary federal statute: Title 42 Section 1983 Civil Action for Deprivation of Federal Constitutional Rights (this is the biggie that Rodney King sued LA under).

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Of course, my initial post was a bit tongue in cheek. The whole concept is about as absurd as cities suing gun manufacturers. However, if you could ever get the suit heard by a jury, you never know what might happen.

Robert
 
Sorry if I had a chilling effect, but there is an entire body of case law against suing municipalities for crime. Now, in our Legal Forum member Shark has posted a novel concept which I think is conducive to tort reform. It's an indirect way to get the legal system off the backs of the gun makers and those who introduce guns (lawfully) into the stream of commerce. Check it out.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
If the city has failed to prosecute a criminal for illegal possession or plea bargained down to a misdemeanor has it not failed in its duty to prosecute violent criminals? Is there some mileage there?

------------------
"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.") -
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD).
 
Afraid not. Unless we're willing to upset our legal system by getting rid of plea bargaining, or to preempt plea bargaining (to a certain extent accomplished by 3 Strikes), the only recourse is to vote the BUM of a District Attorney (or State's Attorney - whatever (s)he is called) out of office. The only other bodies with any authority to punish the DA would be the Court itself (but it is for misconduct) or the State BAR (hahahahahaha) of which they are a member.

The argument against getting rid of plea bargaining is that taking everything to trial (because of the lack of plea bargaining) will result in heavier workload for the court system. We don't have enough DA's to prosecute everything. Unfortunately, all of us here are familar with the glaring failures of plea bargaining: Patrick Purdy who shot up a schoolyard full of kids and gave us the Semi-Auto ban of 1989 in Kali, Hinkley who shot the Prez, ad infinitum.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Come on guys , Your not thinking! We will have to pay to fight the city and we will have to pay for their legal defense and If we win we pay their penalties. Whether we like it or not the citizen is the city. Best way to put an end to the city against us is to get rid of the politicians who are pressing the issue.! How ? You start with the easiest action first! The vote. Then if that doesn't work go to step B. Recall or impeach. Any ideas on step C?
 
Hey, get this. One of Calif's recent "gun control" bills contains a definition of exactly what constitutes "unsafe" firearm, with a convoluted definition. Glocks (and any other handguns without external safties) are by definition unsafe! (in CA anyway). So every citizen in CA needs to join a class action lawsuit against all cities and counties in CA which issue Glocks to their police forces, for putting unsafe weapons "on the streets"!
 
In the event of a win - instead of asking for money... which Gale is right - only hurts us again... Demand in the suit that not only no more anti gun laws be passed - but but that many of the useless gun laws be stricken. Such as bans on High Capacity Magazines, the crime bill's point list defining an assault weapon, the need for a CCW, and several others...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top