Sueing the good guy after getting shot by mistake...

[Frank Ettin]

...If it been clear from the start that you're talking about suing for an amount above and beyond my legitimate expenses, basically trying to take an opportunity for a lottery-like payday, then I would have voted differently...

[1] And really, nobody get a "lottery-like payday" from a negligence suit. He'll only get what a jury decides are his legitimate damages.

[2] Those legitimate expenses, as described earlier, will may very well include substantial hard, economic damages beyond just medical costs.

[3] If you sue someone for negligence, you may be able to get compensated for the damages he caused you to suffer. You will not get rich, and you will not be rewarded beyond the losses the jury believes you have suffered.

All I am asking is if you would be willing to listen and consider the explanation and circumstance before filing a lawsuit or if you would just file anyway no matter what the circumstances are involved....

Personally, I would of course consider the circumstances. I would evaluate and weigh those factors I described in post 37. But I would not shrink from suing under the appropriate circumstances.

I do certainly believe that ordinary folks have a right to have guns and to defend themselves and their families. That's why I have guns. That's why I've trained with a number of the major instructors in the use of my gun, and that's why I practice regularly. Certainly it's been demonstrated repeatedly that a gun in the hands of a private citizen can effectively be used to prevent a violent criminal act.

But on the other hand, I'm sometimes shocked at the expressions of irresponsibility I've seen on various gun forums over the years. Some folks seem to think that training and practice are unimportant. Some folks complain bitterly about being expected in some States to demonstrate basic proficiency and knowledge of the law of the use of force as a condition of carrying a gun in public.

It would be nice if we could have confidence that all of those of our fellow citizens who go about in public armed for their protection were equally serous about comporting themselves in a manner consistent with an appropriately high standard of care. But it looks like that would be expecting too much.

I cant imagine a circumstance where an insurance company would not pay for all of your reasonable medical bills. The point you are trying to assert is a rare case where the medical bills would not be paid for. Employed individuals usually have some type of health insurance and disability. My employer has many different options they offer to include long term disability. Then we have the state which provides various funding through medicare/medicaid. We also have various business and homeowner's insurance plans....

[1] Medical insurance doesn't pay 100% of all medical bill. There are co-payments and deductibles. There are limitations on some kinds of care, especial rehabilitation.

[2] Fewer and fewer employers in this economy are making coverages like long term or short term disability, or other types of income replacement, available. In fact these types of benefits have generally been provided by only larger employers. Small employers, which actually give jobs to a very high percentage of our work force, usually have not provided any meaningful income replacement insurance benefits.

[3] Governmental programs, like Medicaid, will require an applicant meet an indigency test. So if you have any assets, savings for your retirement, equity in a home, etc., you will have to shed them before you become eligible for government assistance.

[4] As mentioned earlier, some of the types of damages you might suffer might not be covered by any of your first party insurance coverages.

...In fact, it's almost the textbook definition of chutzpah. Without painting a specific scenario, it's possible that the victim is still alive not because of the shooter's actions, but in spite of the shooter's actions....

Well said.

 

[Alaska444]

Ultimately, someone has insurance and your medical bills would be paid for. I think most of us here have medical insurance or can make claims under medicaid/medicare. The shooter probably will have homeowner's insurance to protect themselves. Most decent jobs have disability insurance. All businesses have some type of insurance. The hospital wants to get paid so they will assist the homeless man in filing out the state medicare/medicaid forms and they will be compensated. So someone is going to pay your bills...

I am not sure folks are being realistic. The HMO that I worked for for over 11 years had an entire department collecting 3rd party liability payments through law suits. If the person that got shot doesn't sue you, their insurance group most likely will to recover their losses. This is not a new American mindset, people that have injured another are liable and this is a very old concept.

 

[usaign]

Scott,

Again, you are basing your argument purely on $$$. 1 in 4 Americans have a credit score under 600 so there 140k in bills will go nicely on their credit report alongside their foreclosure. I dont think most care about paying the bill nowadays.

A more powerful argument is about non-monetary costs such as permanent pain and injury. I have pain in my foot right now not from a gun shot, but just regular walking around all day. A gun shot to my leg would probably hurt until I die in some way shape or form not to mention put a permanent scar on my body that would be truly ugly.

Now lets say a man is about to shoot a 5 year old girl. I then double-tap some rounds into the man. Some of the bullets go through the man, go through the wall and hit John Smith in his foot. John now has a permanent injury to his leg where he limps and has pain.

So this thread is all about seeing who would study the situation and then decide on sueing and who would just automatically sue no matter the scenario. I didnt start this thread to talk about insurance, bills or whatever you are talking about. I just want to see how many people would think first then sue or how many people would just outright sue.

Personally, I would study the situation and carefully consider the scenario before immediately acting. I would not hire an attorney that day or the next day, but think first and then act. Thats what I would do.

 

[jhenry]

usaign, that is a good example. BUT FOR the would be killer's actions, nothing would have happened. John shot in the foot was NOT shot 'but for' the actions of the shooter. It is interesting to me, and frankly not just a little bit disturbing, to see how many folks would look right past that little girl and right past the shooter's act which saved her life, to go find a lawyer so they could ride John to the bank and cash in. It is, sadly, a me generation mind set we are dealing with. Me first, and screw John.

It is also interesting to me how much chest beating goes on when someone posts a thread "what would you do in this situation" etc. The name calling and so forth that happens when one party may suggest being a good witness instead of direct action, depending upon the situation, has closed many a thread. Now look at this thread.

There have been some well reasoned arguments presented to support view points, and there have been some lesser responses. My own viewpoint is that if you would line up a lawyer without even giving a thought to examining the situation you have an internal problem you may want to take a good look at.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's very easy to posit an idelogical position till you are there and faced with the real consequences of actions.

In a way, I've asked this before. Folks have demanded that someone intervene in an incident to save their family. The good samaritan should take that risk to him or herself and the consequences to their family if they get hurt or killed saving you.

But asked if you would support the good samaritan or his and her family for the rest of their lives - the silence is deafening. Even if you said you would on the Internet - that's worth spit.

 

[scottaschultz]

It has absolutely nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with morality and doing the right thing.

If one of my dogs gets out and bites you, I am going to insist you go to the ER or maybe one of those med-stop places and get checked out and then send me the bill. It was an accident, but it was my dog and you did nothing (I presume) to warrant getting bit. Therefore it is my responsibility to take care of it.

But let's say your dog bites me. You might be down on your lucky and unemployed with no insurance. There is always some sort of "circumstance" surrounding any situation that might prevent you from taking care of a situation your are responsible for. Obviously I can't sue you because my daddy always told me, "You can't do business with people that don't have any money". Well, I could sue you, but it probably wouldn't do me any good.

Its the same thing if you accidentally shoot me. The fact that you stopped a woman from being raped or a child being kidnapped still doesn't heal my wounds. If you can't pay, well then I guess I don't have much of a choice. But if you can pay, either from your personal funds or more likely through your insurance, then you will pay, either voluntarily or by the order of a judge. You pick!

 

[shafter]

I think I'd much rather depend on God to provide for my financial nightmare than some judge who is making a living hell out of someones life for only protecting himself.

 

[scottaschultz]

I think I'd much rather depend on God to provide for my financial nightmare than some judge who is making a living hell out of someones life for only protecting himself.

But if you shot me, even by accident, don't you think God would want you to take responsibility for your own actions? Again, it is one thing if you can't pay, but it is quite another if you won't. If the latter is the case, why shouldn't a judge make you pay?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's a good point - if you are the moral actor and decide to intervene and accidentally shoot an innocent - your morality should mandate that you help with the damage you caused.

That you are a gun totin' hero doesn't remove that responsibility from you.

So let's ask the OP, if you intervene and shoot a good guy - would you liquidate your assets and downsize to pay the legit expenses of the shot up GG?

Sell your house?
Tell your kid, no fancy college?
No vacation for the family?

So would you? You are responsibile for your rounds. I understand laws that remove liabilty from you for shooting the BG but aren't laws that remove liability from you from shooting a GG, fundamentally selfish and immoral?

 

[usaign]

The homeowner's insurance would cover most everything if I accidentally shot another person. Any person who hunts should have at least a million in liability coverage under their homeowner's policy. What you get is an umbrella policy over your current limits. The insurance company is entitled to pay for my defense.

So lets say I accidentally shoot someone else and they die. The homeowners insurance would come in and negotiate a settlement on my behalf. They would probably tender the limits in exchange for a full and final settlement of all claims. The victim's family would not have much choice but to accept the settlement. Lets say they did not accept the settlement then it may take years to litigate with an unknown outcome. The outcome may or may not be favorable. Lets say its favorable then how you going to collect?

So the answer to your question is to have a good insurance policy and company backing you. As for my assets, I dont have that much stuff that I could liquidate. My old car? My 1 year old laptop computer? I dont have a personal jet or Ferrari parked out back. I think you should just be happy that I have insurance to deal with such matters. Many folks who hunt dont have any insurance and so the only thing they can liquidate is the shirts in the closet.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The homeowner's insurance would cover most everything if I accidentally shot another person. Any person who hunts should have at least a million in liability coverage under their homeowner's policy. ... The insurance company is entitled to pay for my defense.

So lets say I accidentally shoot someone else and they die. The homeowners insurance would come in and negotiate a settlement on my behalf...

Yes, and in real life your liability insurer isn't going to get involved unless I sue you, or at least have my lawyer write you a letter demanding payment, with the likelihood of a law suit hanging over your head.

Your liability insurer doesn't have any duty to me, as the person you injured. In your policy of liability insurance, your insurer promises you that it will (1) indemnify you against any loss that you become obligated to pay by reason of your legal fault; and (2) defend you against such claims.

Relying on your liability insurance is fine. But in the context of the question you asked, I will need to sue you, or threaten to sue you, to get your liability insurance to kick in.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Why should I be happy that you have insurance that only partially covers my damages caused by you being a noncompetent shooter? That's a little bit of attitude.

If you didn't have insurance - the question is whether you feel morally compelled to tie your future financial assets to those of the person you shot?

If you left your current low assets state and had some cash - would you then look them up, find expenses not covered and then kick in.

Can't have it both ways - if you don't expect them to sue - then we expect you to do the max to help your victim.

 

[usaign]

"Why should I be happy that you have insurance that only partially covers my damages caused by you being a noncompetent shooter?"

Who said my insurance would not be enough? I am aware of the settlements and awards in these types of cases and believe that it would be enough. I also believe my good samaritan actions would be taken into consideration. For example, if I held up a bank and shot someone then the award would be much higher then if I accidentally shot someone while trying to stop someone from holding up the bank.

Here are a few cases I found off the internet:

Maryland case- Accidental shooting (death) after a night of drinking 1.65 million
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyid=106498

Florida settlement- Gunshot wound - muscle, nerve, tissue damage $600k
http://www.palmisanoandgoodman.com/CM/Custom/Verdicts-Settlements.asp

Illinois settlement- Gunshot wound - left 21 year old male in recovery for 1 year - spinal injury - $425k
http://www.kosnerlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1457904.html

Child loses site after hunting accident - 900k settlement
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2390354826

I would say that my insurance would probably be adequate for most cases. I believe my good samaritan actions would be accounted for i.e. it was an accidental shooting to stop a violent crime versus a purposeful or highly negligent act like playing with the pistol after a night of drinking.

Keep in mind, you are assuming the shooter is negligent. You are not negligent until the judge or jury rules that you are negligent. They could easily come back and say the shooter is not negligent.

As for my liability insurance kicking in...you can always file a claim directly with anyone's insurance company. All states have insurance regulations that state they must accept and investigate the claim. I could file a claim against you right now and just make something up. Your insurance company would be obligated by law to accept my claim, investigate the matter and then accept or deny it even if its an obviously bogus claim. Everything the insurer does is heavily regulated and governed by law. They have to respond to every claim presented to them.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Keep in mind that if you shoot the wrong person you did something wrong.

Also, shooting to keep someone from robbing a bank is thought not to be the wisest action. You shoot to prevent grievous bodily harm to innocents.

Saving the bank's money is really stupid if you take the risk of shooting an innocent. I might not hold you as responsible if you were saving a life and missed a shot. If it were the case that the bank robber was likely to leave with the cash and you went commando and plugged Granny - I would vote to take your stuff.

But you skirt the moral issue. You dance by saying your insurance is adequate and saying your good intentions would protect you. So you are about being protected by insurance and others for the consequences of your actions. Also, you look to others to give you the moral pass in a trial.

I'm saying - ok - yes, your insurance paid and your clever lawyer managed to get you off by getting the blood lust crowd from the Internet on the jury. But, it's you all alone with your conscience - do you kick in for expenses not covered. Or if you didn't have insurance to cover you (OH, insurance mitigates your common sense not to be a commando), do YOU feel that you need to suffer personal financial sacrifice for your actions?

If you don't get the point about saving lives as the necessary precondition to shoot - you need to rethink this.

I don't recall a Battle Cry - I have Insurance - Fire One!

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Here are a few cases I found off the internet...

What do these have to do with anything? They are bare reports of settlement/judgment amounts. In each case, the victim may have received adequate compensation, or he/she may not have. The amounts recovered may have more to do with the amount of money available than with the extent of the victims losses.

And the $425K paid the 21 year old victim of a gunshot wound was a medical malpractice case. The hospital was sued because the patient developed a bed sore. The $425K had nothing to do with the damages/losses suffered by the victim as a result of the underlying gunshot injury.

...I believe my good samaritan actions would be accounted for i.e. it was an accidental shooting to stop a violent crime ....

Keep in mind, you are assuming the shooter is negligent. You are not negligent until the judge or jury rules that you are negligent. They could easily come back and say the shooter is not negligent....

[1] Yes, you will only be legally liable if you were legally at fault (e. g., negligent or reckless). And that's what litigation is about. In order to properly determine whether or not you were at fault, I might well need the investigatory tools available to me in litigation. So I'm back to having to sue you in any case.

[2] And in deciding whether you were at legal fault, the nature, quality and circumstances of your actions will be taken into account. A fair, shorthand definition of "negligence" is, "failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...As for my liability insurance kicking in...you can always file a claim directly with anyone's insurance company. All states have insurance regulations that state they must accept and investigate the claim....

No, that is not at all true. A liability insurer has no duty to respond to a claim directly from a stranger. The liability insurer insures you, and owes its duties to you.

Yes, insurance is highly regulated, and after over 30 years practicing law, much of which involved dealing with the regulation of insurance, I am very familiar with that fact.

...I could file a claim against you right now and just make something up. Your insurance company would be obligated by law to accept my claim, investigate the matter and then accept or deny it even if its an obviously bogus claim...

But you would have to make that claim to me, and I would have to refer it to my insurer. If you went directly to my insurer, they could ignore you. And BTW, how would you even know who my liability insurer is?

 

[shafter]

You guys are absolutely right. If I hurt you then I am morally obligated to pay even if I was doing nothing wrong.

If nothing else this thread should emphasize the importance of putting your shots in the right place. Practice Practice Practice!

 

[.22lr]

I'll ask again

In the hypothetical scenerio that the OP added on the third page of this thread, I am struck by bullets that have overpenetrated the assailiant of a 5 year old.

Then the shooter was negligent in ammunition choice, AND choice of a backstop. Every bullet that leaves your barrel is weighed down by awesome responsibility. Its your bullet, what it does, you have done.

If you strike an INNOCENT PERSON you are responsible. You have caused the innocent person's injury, you have impacted their life. You have impacted their family's life. Why the heck should you be absolved just because you decided that you were the "good guy". Why should the victim of the shooters negligence suffer? WHY should the shooter decide what impact to the innocent person's life is acceptable?

1) Did the shooter fire the gun that injured the innocent person?
2) Are you responsible for the injuries caused?
3) Are you responsible for the impacts to the innocent person's life?

 

[.22lr]

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I have a question as to how people view their responsibility when their gun is fired.

Visit:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=417665

if you are interested.

To the moderators - if this is considered a thread hijack, please delete.

thanks,

~Matt

 

[usaign]

"No, that is not at all true. A liability insurer has no duty to respond to a claim directly from a stranger. The liability insurer insures you, and owes its duties to you.

Yes, insurance is highly regulated, and after over 30 years practicing law, much of which involved dealing with the regulation of insurance, I am very familiar with that fact."

I honestly dont believe you are an attorney because then you would know that every state has a fair claims settlement act on their books. Each settlement act is worded in a similar manner. Here is a good example, California:

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0100-co...0-residential/fair-claims-settlement-regs.cfm

Each settlement act prescribes exactly how an insurance company conducts themselves through the claims process and if there is any deviation then they get fined. The insurance company has a duty to respond to you if you report a claim and investigate the matter. They have a duty to accept or deny your claim.

I will bet money that I could call any claims hotline right now and report a claim even without a policy number and just vague facts. They will accept the claim and investigate it. How do I know this? I have worked at the insurance company claim departments. There was once this lady who kept calling in a bogus claim...to the tune of about 50 times where the internal investigation unit had to be called in and get the police involved because it was taxing the company's resources. Each time the lady called in a claim, it had to be assigned to an adjuster. There were numerous adjusters involved over several states.

In California, where I worked as an adjuster a while back, they would test you on this act and you had to sign a paper certifying that you read it. I can tell you there were plenty of claims that came through with very little information. Sometimes all we had was a license plate number...sometimes there was absolutely nothing at all where the guy simply jumped out and said he had the insurance, but left without giving any information. Each claim went the same way with the usual letters and investigative process. Everyone was responded to and when the claimants felt they were not getting responded to, then they filed a complaint with the DOI. You have to respond to these DOI complaints otherwise the company gets hit with a fine.