Are You Liable?

[bigus_D]

I believe civil liability would be a serious potential issue.

I believe "criminal liability" (if there is even such a thing... you know what I mean though) would not be an issue in the example. If the kid were a minor, I would have more concern of "criminal liability".

Note: I'd love to see these questions in the form of a poll... then we could see how many people answered correctly. I'm having fun playing though!

Note2: As I am expecting my first born in a couple of months, I have only recently added a safe for my firearms. Developing a routine of not leaving the gun out has been a focus. +1 to Mgderf's comment "NEVER, leave ANY firearm unattended!"

 

[Doobie]

No laws were broken by the gun owner. But a good lawyer can sue a ham sandwich and I can see lawyers falling all over each other to sue the gun owner. I can just see him/her crying in front of the jury in the civil suit that not only did he leave it out in plain site for anyone to pick up but it was loaded with "super lethal" ammunition that kills anything it touches. It was a murder waiting to happen and he was drinking beer and watching a football game while my client's wife and children were buchered. He didn't even care. More tears of course.

 

[GlockRock]

Not liable.

 

[SC_Shooter]

I'm going with "no." From a moral standpoint, you certainly should have done more to secure your weapon. In this scenario, however, it was not picked up by a child who shot himself...it was stolen by a felon who then committed another felony prior to three murders. An awful situation, but I don't see the liability.

The wild card here, of course, is the jury. When mom and two children get gunned down, there will be all sorts of emotions in the courtroom and even more in the jury room during deliberations.

 

[millsusaf]

BS! You are not liable....or at least shouldn't be. In the world we are forced to live in now a days who knows for sure but NO you SHOULD not be help liable. The 18 yo POS is clearly responsible and should be held accountable entirely for his actions. To deflect any responsibility to anyone but the POS 18yo is doing him no favors.

The middle east has their issues but I respect their criminal justice system. The law is the law and the criminals are held accountable swiftly and severely for their actions.

We need to take some lessons from them regarding that.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I'm going with no . Or as a guy with a police report about a stolen gun with said ammo in it , I sure hope not .

 

[jd3772000]

These scenarios are great ...keep em commin...

 

[possum_128]

Lets see, gun is stolen and used in a crime. You are not liable for the actions of a thief who used your property in a crime. Otherwise, if someone swipped your car and killed someone with it ,say, during a police chase, there would be a lot of folks in trouble. As for being not under lock and key, the same would apply if a car is stolen with the keys left it it.

I loaned a friend a gun years ago and it was taken in a breke in. The gun was used to shoot a drug dealer in a buy gone bad. Police called me after the perp and gun were recovered and asked if I wanted it back. I was not charged or in any trouble and neither was my friend.

So I say no, you would not be liable.

By the way, this is fun!

 

[wtfd661]

No you are not liable civilly or criminally since the turd entered your home illegally and stole the gun. On the other hand the bigger question is whether or not you will be able to sleep at night knowing that you might have prevented that by securing before you left for the evening, I know how I would answer that.

 

[newguyjosh]

I'm going to say you are definately not in trouble from a criminal stand point but I'm not so sure about civil....my guess is you could probably be sued and lose...this country has some crazy *** lawsuits....I think it is complete bs but believe it is possible at least in some states...hopefully IN knows better...it sounds like they try to prevent civil suits in a justifiable shooting so hopefully theres something to prevent it here.

 

[TheGhostRider]

Liable
I believe the owner would face some form of penalty for not taking "reasonable" measures to secure the firearm.


Locked house: The owner has made a reasonable attempt to secure his/her property. The owner is not required by law to own a safe designed specifically for the storage of a firearm. This would be considered "reasonable measure" and the owner would have the right to feel secure.

Unlocked house: the owner has made no reasonable effort to secure his/her property and has no right to feel secure.

Criminals have no morals therefore it is the owners responsibility to "secure his/her property to the best of his/her ability.

No lock is secure... But its better than nothing.
Security based on morality only works if everyone is moral.

 

[Jay]

I'm saying NOT liable. What if the 18 yr old stole a knife and stabbed someone..... or stole your hammer and beat someone? Just because it's a gun, shouldn't make any difference with the stated break-in, and no "safe-storage" laws in Indiana.

 

[danmdevries]

Sounds like a lot of beer in the story...

Doesn't using a psychoactive substance to intoxication disqualify a person from legally posessing a firearm?

I could imagine this being an issue.

 

[redneckmedic]

There is no law that says you have to lock up your firearm. He broke many laws, you broke none. The only thing you will lose is a second invite to watch the Colts on a kick'n TV.

 

[colt45er]

I am going to say no.

This is no different than someone stealing your car and hitting and killing someone. The moment that they illegally took your property you are no longer liable.

Obviously there could be variables but in general...No

 

[Cygnus]

No legally not liable. The antigunners will be screamin your fault and guns are bad tho.

I'll go with this.
Additionally you will have legal issues.
I think ultimately , once the background, etc. of the killer come out you will have not commited a crime. I do bet that you and the gun manufacturer will be facing civil suits.

Continue....

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm going to have to go with no. The owner has clear immunity in this instance under IN code.

IC 34-30-20-1
Owner immunity for misuse of a firearm by a person who acquires the firearm by criminal act
Sec. 1. A person is immune from civil liability based on an act or omission related to the use of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm by another person if the other person directly or indirectly obtained the firearm or ammunition for a firearm through the commission of the following:
(1) Burglary (IC 35-43-2-1).
(2) Robbery (IC 35-42-5-1).
(3) Theft (IC 35-43-4-2).
(4) Receiving stolen property (IC 35-43-4-2).
(5) Criminal conversion (IC 35-43-4-3).

Indiana Code 34-30-20

But if the criminal was under 18, the owner may have legal problems. If they can prove that he "recklessly" provided the firearm.

IC 35-47-10-6
Dangerous control of a firearm
Sec. 6. An adult who knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly provides a firearm to a child for any purpose other than those described in section 1 of this chapter, with or without remuneration, commits dangerous control of a firearm, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the adult has a prior conviction under this section.

IC 35-47-10

I do bet that you and the gun manufacturer will be facing civil suits.

Continue....

I covered the owner above, the manufacturers would be covered under federal law.[FONT=helvetica, arial, geneva]
[/FONT]

(5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

US CODE: Title 15,7901. Findings; purposes

All standard disclaimers apply
IANAL, TINLA, YMMV etc.

 

[Bubba]

I'm going to have to go with no. The owner has clear immunity in this instance under IN code.

Indiana Code 34-30-20

But if the criminal was under 18, the owner may have legal problems. If they can prove that he "recklessly" provided the firearm.

IC 35-47-10



I covered the owner above, the manufacturers would be covered under federal law.[FONT=helvetica, arial, geneva]
[/FONT]US CODE: Title 15,7901. Findings; purposes

All standard disclaimers apply
IANAL, TINLA, YMMV etc.

That seems pretty cut-and-dried. I'll buy it.

 

[tenring]

Yesterday-NO
Today-YES

 

[GuyRelford]

I'm going to have to go with no. The owner has clear immunity in this instance under Indiana Code 34-30-1

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

That is exactly right - due to the fact that the gun was stolen, Indiana law provides immunity from civil liability in this situation (as well as others in which a firearm is obtained illegally):

"IC 34-30-20-1

Owner immunity for misuse of a firearm by a person who acquires the firearm by criminal act

Sec. 1. A person is immune from civil liability based on an act or omission related to the use of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm by another person if the other person directly or indirectly obtained the firearm or ammunition for a firearm through the commission of the following:
(1) Burglary (IC 35-43-2-1).
(2) Robbery (IC 35-42-5-1).
(3) Theft (IC 35-43-4-2).
(4) Receiving stolen property (IC 35-43-4-2).
(5) Criminal conversion (IC 35-43-4-3)."

In this situation, your failure to lock your house or otherwise secure your firearm, as well as your use of hollow-point ammunition, would all be cosidered "an act or omission related to the use of a firearm or ammunition" for which there is immunity if the gun is stolen.

As many of you stated, moral responsibility is an entirely different matter. Personally, I'd rather get skinned alive and eaten by pygmy cannibals than have to live with the knowledge that I failed to secure a firearm and that failure contributed to an innocent person's death. Nonetheless, Indiana law provides immunity from civil liability under these circumstances.

Many of you ultimately answered this question correctly, focusing on the fact that the gun was stolen. The most important fact is that any civil lawsuit would be summarily dismissed under the immunity statute, unlike other situations in which you might ultimately win, but you have to spend a fortune in legal fees during the process.

Great job Timjoebillybob!! You get $25 off your next TFT training class! (Although it sounds like you may not need to take Comprehensive Indiana Gun Law!) Reps to you.