Family Blames Gun Show For Boy's Death

[jasons]

I agree letting him make his first try with a full mag is a risk, but we don't even know how many rounds were fired before he was hit.

Clearly it was more than one. New shooter + new weapon = one round at a time. This is training 101 folks.

 

[strangenh]

why?, if a bunch of children shot the uzi without incident, then it could be proven that a reasonable person would think that it was safe for a child to shoot

Hunh? A reasonable person would assume something risky doesn't always result in the harm. Otherwise it's not a risk - it's a certainty.

 

[jasons]

why?, if a bunch of children shot the uzi without incident, then it could be proven that a reasonable person would think that it was safe for a child to shoot

That's like saying that 5 kids played Russian Roulette and were OK so it's OK for #6 to take a turn. None of the other kids got hurt, so it must be safe right?

Just because they ignored safety rules and best practices for other kids doesn't mean that they get off the hook when someone finally gets hurt as a result of them ignoring those safety rules.

 

[strangenh]

Clearly it was more than one. New shooter + new weapon = one round at a time. This is training 101 folks.

Good luck with that as a negligence argument. If the kid handled 1 round, then 3, then killed himself with 4, would that make it not negligence to tie down the safety feature?

In this particular case, what your argument basically boils down to is that anyone should have known the child couldn't handle it when they had to tie down the safety. They didn't need to experiment one round at a time to know it.

 

[terraformer]

He's confusing criminal negligence with civil. I believe he's saying blame them but don't hold them criminally responsible for the deaths.

So don't hold them "criminally responsible", but hold them "civilly responsible". OK, that makes more sense.

 

[Supermoto]

Huh?

Blame is entirely subjective and dependent on a person's belief

responsibility requires meeting a standard

 

[jasons]

Good luck with that as a negligence argument. If the kid handled 1 round, then 3, then killed himself with 4, would that make it not negligence to tie down the safety feature?

I never said that. There were many mistakes made. Disabling the grip safety is certainly another log on the negligence fire.

In this particular case, what your argument basically boils down to is that anyone should have known the child couldn't handle it when they had to tie down the safety. They didn't need to experiment one round at a time to know it.

Actually my argument is that an "expert" should have known better than to give a weapon to an inexperienced shooter without taking some additional safety precautions. In this case they did the opposite - they disabled and / or ignored safety precautions.

 

[Aube]

WBZ Conversation Nation. Leave your comments-

http://pod08.prospero.com/n/blogs/blog.aspx?webtag=WBZ_Morning

"They brought their eight year old son to a gun show and let him handle an Uzi. That boy was killed when the weapon went off

Now his family has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit blaming, among others, a 15 year old instructor who handed the boy the gun

The family of Christopher Bazilj is also going after the owners of the gun club where the show was held, the promoters of the event and the companies that made the weapon and the ammo

The family alleges the 15 year old instructor who handed Chris the weapon was not properly trained.

They also claim the Uzi was "unreasonably dangerous"

Why was it loaded in the first place?

 

[Bob P]

Good luck with that as a negligence argument. If the kid handled 1 round, then 3, then killed himself with 4, would that make it not negligence to tie down the safety feature?

In this particular case, what your argument basically boils down to is that anyone should have known the child couldn't handle it when they had to tie down the safety. They didn't need to experiment one round at a time to know it.

All of this is irrelevant when it comes to a products liability action.

The manufacturer created the gun with safety features.

The owner/keeper of the gun bypassed those safety features, making a material change to the item and rendering it 'defective' from a products liability standpoint.

The owner/keep then entrusted said defective product to a 3rd party who was injured while using it.

Products actions are governed by strict liability. If the product is deemed defective, strict liability applies. Strict liability DOES NOT allow you to make an assumption of risk defense unless the injured party is the one that modified the product in the first place. It either is or isn't defective and if it is and someone gets hurt, the entity that MADE it defective is strictly liable.

Scrivner would have hung me out to dry for the above as I'm SERIOUSLY simplifying things but basically if they can get the court to agree that the defeated safety made the product defective (and they will, there's more then enough case law on defeated safety features on power tools that will transfer to this) the family has a slam dunk case.

 

[Supermoto]

If it weren't for the rubber band. The rubber band around the safety is the key to the civil case. You've mechanically defeated a safety feature.

They're screwed.

Correct, the rubber band will make all the difference

That's like saying that 5 kids played Russian Roulette and were OK so it's OK for #6 to take a turn. None of the other kids got hurt, so it must be safe right?

not even close, Russian roulette will eventually end badly. not the same can be said for shooting FA, although in this cases it did

 

[jhblaze1]

so if this jackass put his 8 year old kid in the driver's seat of his car and sent the kid off on a joyride down 495, would he blame the car and the turnpike authority?


FAIL.

 

[Admin]

so if this jackass put his 8 year old kid in the driver's seat of his car and sent the kid off on a joyride down 495, would he blame the car and the turnpike authority?


FAIL.

In Massachusetts, YES.

 

[strangenh]

I never said that. There were many mistakes made. Disabling the grip safety is certainly another log on the negligence fire.

Ok, sure. We're are almost entirely in agreement. Where I differed was where you said the loaded mag was "just as negligent" as tying down the safety. Almost as a matter of law, it isn't. Disabling a feature designed to prevent the very harm that happened is akin to negligence per se - really, it's reckless behavior. You describe good practice, but in this case, if they needed to tie down the safety, they didn't need to start with even one round to know the child could not handle the weapon.

 

[strangenh]

All of this is irrelevant when it comes to a products liability action.

Yes, Bob. I agree. I already discussed the issue with disabling the safety feature. There is a products liability case to be had. There is also a basic negligence case to be had here.

I gather YANAL.

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

Here we go...

Yeah, blame the gun... but don't blame the father that made the idiotic decision to allow an 8 year old to shoot a micro uzi.

-Mike

I am surprised that they didn't take a trip to Israel to sue the Israelis for manufacturing the UZI.

 

[Blitz1]

Plenty of stupid to go around here.

I don't even know where to begin, but I suppose if I had to I would begin with the Father.

Tragic and Sad. [sad2] The fact the parents are trying to make money off of the fathers own idiocy just pisses me off.

But like I said, plenty of stupid to go around here.

 

[terraformer]

so if this jackass put his 8 year old kid in the driver's seat of his car and sent the kid off on a joyride down 495, would he blame the car and the turnpike authority?


FAIL.

I suspect what this will hinge upon who should be responsible for knowing this (micro-uzi in a kid's hands) would be a bad thing. Driving is common knowledge. Full auto firearms are (unfortunately) not. If you buy that common knowledge of FA firearm safety does not exist and therefore knowledge of their dangers (beyond the obvious) is not common knowledge (that would be barrel rise folks, not the inherent danger in the muzzle end alone), then the next step is the "professionals" at the event. Who I feel bad for in this liability mess is the 15 yro who got caught in the middle. He is the liability link between the dead kid and everyone else. His "guilt" (aka; liability) is really important to both cases. Ie; the parents can't have him be too liable, or they lose the link further up the chain and the "professional" supervision wants him to be 100% liable to protect themselves. It basically means no one will settle with him. He will be thrown under the bus by everyone on both sides and he is as much a victim of adult stupidity as is the dead kid.

 

[jasons]

Russian roulette will eventually end badly. not the same can be said for shooting FA, although in this cases it did

So you think that letting a 15 year old supervise an 8 year old with an Uzi with a disabled safety and full magazine is OK? Of course not - eventually something bad is going to happen. This incident is proof of that.

The FA part is not relevant though. It's not the Uzi's fault. The "experts" who ignored multiple common sense safety practices are the ones holding the bag IMHO.

And of course the father shares some responsibility because he's the father. That should go without saying.

 

[Bob P]

Yes, Bob. I agree. I already discussed the issue with disabling the safety feature. There is a products liability case to be had. There is also a basic negligence case to be had here.

I gather YANAL.

Nope, I'm not and I agree there's simple negligence as well. I was just getting irritated as some posters to the thread are having a hard time with the idea that anyone other then the parent was at fault for this cluster F.

 

[MassMark]

In Massachusetts, YES.

Exactly.

I guess there's a good reason why I'm not in charge of things. In "Markland Superior Court", I would throw this lawsuit out and throw the asshat father in prison for child abuse and negligent homicide.

I think the CIII holder was reckless and irresponsible, but the father was negligent. the dealer did not force the father to help his son kill himself. While he snapped pictures of his boy with a little bad Uzi, his reluctant son - trying to appease his father, (again) shot himself in the face...
Like I said: He should sue his own ass...

 

[strangenh]

Nope, I'm not and I agree there's simple negligence as well. I was just getting irritated as some posters to the thread are having a hard time with the idea that anyone other then the parent was at fault for this cluster F.

Well, I'm on your side on this one, and I think the law mostly is, too.

 

[Bob P]

so if this jackass put his 8 year old kid in the driver's seat of his car and sent the kid off on a joyride down 495, would he blame the car and the turnpike authority?


FAIL.

Closer to him putting his 8 y/o in the driver's seat at a closed racetrack with the kid sitting on books to see over the stearing wheel and with blocks on the pedals and an 'instructor' assuring him that everything would be fine.


Little bit different situation.

 

[jasons]

Where I differed was where you said the loaded mag was "just as negligent" as tying down the safety. Almost as a matter of law, it isn't.

Good point. I was looking at it from a "common sense" perspective. I'm not a lawyer.

 

[richc]

I'm wondering if this is less about money and more about the incredible guilt felt by the parents. Jeez... if you get a court to say someone else was responsible and make the other party pay big time, maybe the parents believe they will feel less guilty about the decisions they made. If it is someone else's fault, it helps the parents feel exonerated about the choices they made.

Sometimes civil cases are a coping mechanism for the bereaved.

Rich

 

[jasons]

I was just getting irritated as some posters to the thread are having a hard time with the idea that anyone other then the parent was at fault for this cluster F.

So you don't think that the "experts" who were running this event share any responsibility? I have a hard time agreeing there.

 

[T3andme]

I'm wondering if this is less about money and more about the incredible guilt felt by the parents. Jeez... if you get a court to say someone else was responsible and make the other party pay big time, maybe the parents believe they will feel less guilty about the decisions they made. If it is someone else's fault, it helps the parents feel exonerated about the choices they made.

Sometimes civil cases are a coping mechanism for the bereaved.

Rich

That is my take on things also....FWIW

 

[vicpinto]

The family of Christopher Bazilj is also going after the owners of... the companies that made.... the ammo

So can I sue the makers of the gasoline that was in the car that rear ended me? What about the radio station that person was listening to when they rear ended me? Can I sue them? Maybe Britney Spears was on the radio at the time. Can I sue her?

Maybe he was on his cell phone. Can I sue the phone manufacturer? Or Verizon? Or the long distance carrier? Maybe I should sue everybody? Maybe because I am writing this thread and I am getting emotionally distressed maybe I can sue Derek?

When are all these useless, bullshit lawsuits going to end? <----Rhetorical, don't bother answering.

 

[richc]

Nope, I'm not and I agree there's simple negligence as well. I was just getting irritated as some posters to the thread are having a hard time with the idea that anyone other then the parent was at fault for this cluster F.

There were ample opportunities for many to just say no, and this child would be alive today.

 

[Admin]

I'm wondering if this is less about money and more about the incredible guilt felt by the parents. Jeez... if you get a court to say someone else was responsible and make the other party pay big time, maybe the parents believe they will feel less guilty about the decisions they made. If it is someone else's fault, it helps the parents feel exonerated about the choices they made.

Sometimes civil cases are a coping mechanism for the bereaved.

Rich

That may be the case, but who takes solace in destroying other people's lives to make theirs better?

 

[terraformer]

I'm wondering if this is less about money and more about the incredible guilt felt by the parents. Jeez... if you get a court to say someone else was responsible and make the other party pay big time, maybe the parents believe they will feel less guilty about the decisions they made. If it is someone else's fault, it helps the parents feel exonerated about the choices they made.

Sometimes civil cases are a coping mechanism for the bereaved.

Rich

There are two parents. Each one with their own issues to deal with. Mom is likely driving the lawyer bus. Dad is likely trying to hold on to his marriage and access to his other son. I doubt the psychology for this one will fit into a neat little box. A very messy, overflowing putrid trash can is more aptly the synonym I would chose.