Is this what NH gun owners get to look forward to?

[strangenh]

Like ShadeWPI says, this is a basic negligence case based on the commonlaw duty of reasonable care... what that means under circumstances where a known bad actor is known by the owner to have unfettered access to the object that, it turns out, helped the bad actor cause harm. It's a very boring torts case, really. Particular only to its facts and unlikely to set any significant precedent. You could substitute facts here, like a known drunk and car keys, and it would not change the case law that will be the deciding law in this case.

 

[Pete85]

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

Personal responsibility has been thrown out the window.

No, they just want to shift the "personal responsibility" to the person who has more money. This is a lawsuit brought by the family of one of the victims, not a criminal trial. Someone's just trying to shift the blame so they can get a quick payday.

 

[mcb]

My grandfathers rifles were stored leaning up against the wall in, get this, Boston! As kids we didn't touch them because we were told not to, that was back in the Ray Flynn days.

 

[MichaelJR]

This is ridiculous.

With this mindset, if you steal my car and run someone over, it's my fault because it's my car. If I lend you a chainsaw, and you cut your foot off, it's my fault because I let you use the chainsaw without properly blah blah blah.

Why can't this guy just....pour a bottle of gasoline over his head and light himself on fire? Darwin isn't doing his job, let's just hope he goes pyro-suicidal.

 

[mikem317]

This seems like an open and closed case. The store owner can't be responsible if somebody BROKE INTO THEIR DWELLING and used an (material object) to (present-tense verb) somebody.

If somebody breaks into my garage, steals my car, and runs over a flock of kindergarteners, who's responsible?

- - - Updated - - -

This is ridiculous.

With this mindset, if you steal my car and run someone over, it's my fault because it's my car. If I lend you a chainsaw, and you cut your foot off, it's my fault because I let you use the chainsaw without properly blah blah blah.

Why can't this guy just....pour a bottle of gasoline over his head and light himself on fire? Darwin isn't doing his job, let's just hope he goes pyro-suicidal.

Looks like you beat me to it.

Now, if you left your car on, keys in ignition and somebody uses it to commit a crime, then there rightfully might be some retribution. Ditto if you leave a loaded gun on a public street.

But that's not the case here.

 

[luv2Bfree]

So... You park your car and lock it. A carjacker breaks in, hot wires it, runs down a group of pedestrians. Are you now held responsible for the injuries and deaths? Collinder Cases... They just don't hold water.

 

[dwarven1]

Secord didn't do that, he said. "If he just locked the guns up in a safe, Mr. Woodbury could not have gotten a hold of them, and we wouldn't be here today," Tepichin said.

If we had JUST ONE MORE LAW, a "felon with a history of armed robbery" wouldn't have committed more crimes.

And if I had a unicorn, I could get it to piss in my gas tank and not have to pay for my commute.

 

[Mr Weebles]

The attorney isn't really hoping to hold the homeowner responsible, he's hoping the hoeowner's insurance company decides the court battle isn't worth the trouble and offers to settle out of court.

Don't kid yourselves, that asshat isn't trying to make the world a better and safer place, he's trying to cash in.

 

[mikem317]

The attorney isn't really hoping to hold the homeowner responsible, he's hoping the hoeowner's insurance company decides the court battle isn't worth the trouble and offers to settle out of court.

Don't kid yourselves, that asshat isn't trying to make the world a better and safer place, he's trying to cash in.

Yup. Follow the money trail.

 

[terraformer]

It's a very boring torts case, really. Particular only to its facts and unlikely to set any significant precedent. You could substitute facts here, like a known drunk and car keys, and it would not change the case law that will be the deciding law in this case.

Not really as this is about more than the facts of this case. This is a case that is threatening those long held tort principles by providing a "but it's guns" wedge that hostile courts can use to inflict pain on gun owners. The Mass Appeals court didn't take the bait and I really hope the 1st circuit doesn't either. If they don't take the bait, it will make it much harder for lawyers to just file these claims willy nilly.

 

[n1zfg]

I read this and I think "land sharks attracted to the smell of money".

There are reasons for all those "dead lawyer" jokes.

This lawsuit is one of them.

It makes about as much sense as suing McDonalds for pain & suffering after spilling coffee on yourself.

 

[Mr Weebles]

It makes about as much sense as suing McDonalds for pain & suffering after spilling coffee on yourself.

Bad example.

McDonald's was negligent in that case.

 

[StevieP]

Bad example.

McDonald's was negligent in that case.

I'd have to look it up, but my recollection was that some stupid bitch put a hot cup of coffee between her legs to [do something else]. She "accidentally" squeezed her legs together and the hot coffee scalded her legs. Somehow that was McDonald's fault and she won a boatload of money. McDonald's had to change their packaging to write "Coffee is hot" on the outside, ostensibly to remove their liability for stupid people doing stupid things, such as holding hot coffee in a paper cup, between their legs.

McDonald's may have been found guilty of something, but I still cannot wrap myself around the fact they were 'negligent.' Can you elucidate, please?

 

[Mark from MA]

It is. But, I don't see how it should be the burden of the owner to secure a gun anymore than a hammer or a chainsaw. I'm not saying that its smart to leave it unlocked. But, we don't want to live in a society that places the burden on the owner of the stolen property, the victim.

This. So if your car's not locked in a garage and someone steals your liable if someone steals it and runs someone over with it. Idiots. This society just seems to thrive on sidestepping personal responsibility.

 

[Mr Weebles]

I'd have to look it up, but my recollection was that some stupid bitch put a hot cup of coffee between her legs to [do something else]. She "accidentally" squeezed her legs together and the hot coffee scalded her legs. Somehow that was McDonald's fault and she won a boatload of money. McDonald's had to change their packaging to write "Coffee is hot" on the outside, ostensibly to remove their liability for stupid people doing stupid things, such as holding hot coffee in a paper cup, between their legs.

McDonald's may have been found guilty of something, but I still cannot wrap myself around the fact they were 'negligent.' Can you elucidate, please?

Liebeck v. McDonald's

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.

 

[Mark from MA]

Bad example.

McDonald's was negligent in that case.

No it's the perfect example. Because they were deemed negligent it opened the books for frivolent lawsuits far and wide. Dumb bitch and even dumber judge

 

[strangenh]

Not really as this is about more than the facts of this case. This is a case that is threatening those long held tort principles by providing a "but it's guns" wedge that hostile courts can use to inflict pain on gun owners. The Mass Appeals court didn't take the bait and I really hope the 1st circuit doesn't either.

Disagree. Entirely. Sorry. Also, 1st Circuit is obligated to abide by state tort law. There is no federal version of NH tort law at play.

 

[dwarven1]

I'd have to look it up, but my recollection was that some stupid bitch put a hot cup of coffee between her legs to [do something else]. She "accidentally" squeezed her legs together and the hot coffee scalded her legs. Somehow that was McDonald's fault and she won a boatload of money. McDonald's had to change their packaging to write "Coffee is hot" on the outside, ostensibly to remove their liability for stupid people doing stupid things, such as holding hot coffee in a paper cup, between their legs.

McDonald's may have been found guilty of something, but I still cannot wrap myself around the fact they were 'negligent.' Can you elucidate, please?

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

 

[Mr Weebles]

No it's the perfect example. Because they were deemed negligent it opened the books for frivolent lawsuits far and wide. Dumb bitch and even dumber judge

You're incorrect. Read the entry I linked to above.

McDonald's was in fact negligent, and the case didn't "open the books for frivolent lawsuits far and wide" because her suit was not frivolous.

 

[terraformer]

Disagree. Entirely. Sorry. Also, 1st Circuit is obligated to abide by state tort law. There is no federal version of NH tort law at play.

The point is that the harm is defined by the courts. If a court says that a reasonable person should have known that a gun locked in the home was at a high likelihood to be stolen, NH's tort law doesn't matter because the harm has now been deemed real and the case can proceed. Or worse yet, a decision that the courts must allow a jury to decide this fact and the judge can't dismiss based on his own reading of the facts, the lawsuit floodgates just opened up where ins companies will settle instead of fighting.

 

[strangenh]

The point is that the harm is defined by the courts. If a court says that a reasonable person should have known that a gun locked in the home was at a high likelihood to be stolen, NH's tort law doesn't matter because the harm has now been deemed real and the case can proceed. Or worse yet, a decision that the courts must allow a jury to decide this fact and the judge can't dismiss based on his own reading of the facts, the lawsuit floodgates just opened up where ins companies will settle instead of fighting.

That may be true depending on the case, but I continue to disagree with your interpretation of the case under discussion.

 

[bigtig50]

I am just curious. If someone stole a car and used it to kill someone, or they stole the kitchen carving knives and stabbed six people, or anything along this vein, are the property owners liable? Does this just apply to the "evil" guns? WTF!!!

 

[terraformer]

That may be true depending on the case, but I continue to disagree with your interpretation of the case under discussion.

1. Whether the District Court erred by finding there was no genuine factual dispute that: (i) Lawrence Secord discovered that his cabin had been broken into and his handgun stolen after the murder of Gary Jones; and that (ii) Michael Woodbury did not have unfettered access to Lawrence Secord’s cabin in 2007.
2. Whether the District Court erred by finding that Lawrence Secord did not owe Gary Jones a duty to store his handgun in a manner other than which it was kept.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by granting Lawrence Secord summary judgment without a hearing, and before Gail Jones acquired certain documents through discovery, without taking the steps available to her under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to request the District Court to postpone its decision.

Having actually read the two pleading earlier, #2 is what I am concerned about but all three speak directly to the ability of a judge to stop a frivolous lawsuit. The plaintiff's are alleging that the failure to store the gun in a safe was the factor here. Yes, they are tying prior knowledge on behalf of the miscreant to some parts of their claims, but they take Jupin v. Kask and amp it up by stating that any knowledge of the presence of firearms by any malcontent is enough to trigger the heightened duty of care sought. Hence why this is so dangerous. It lowers the bar substantially. Also, the knowledge of the break-in, regardless of the knowledge of the gun theft, is enough to trigger the care of reporting the grandson to the police. If accepted, this means that if you ever have a break in, anyone that knows about the guns needs to be reported as suspects, even if you didn't know guns were stolen.

 

[BOBKATT]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. . . ."

 

[noddaduma]

Wasn't there some issue of a faulty lock and him knowing of a key? That may be why. He's planning on arguing that it wasnt locked, but it is still unlawful entry and possession by a felon. This is ridiculous, but bing heard in the first circuit, not NH courts...

According to the article, the cabin was locked. The kid couldn't find the spare key and broke in.

 

[cekim]

According to the article, the cabin was locked. The kid couldn't find the spare key and broke in.

Then public spankings for the kid and his lawyers...

 

[strangenh]

Having actually read the two pleading earlier, #2 is what I am concerned about but all three speak directly to the ability of a judge to stop a frivolous lawsuit. The plaintiff's are alleging that the failure to store the gun in a safe was the factor here. Yes, they are tying prior knowledge on behalf of the miscreant to some parts of their claims, but they take Jupin v. Kask and amp it up by stating that any knowledge of the presence of firearms by any malcontent is enough to trigger the heightened duty of care sought. Hence why this is so dangerous. It lowers the bar substantially. Also, the knowledge of the break-in, regardless of the knowledge of the gun theft, is enough to trigger the care of reporting the grandson to the police. If accepted, this means that if you ever have a break in, anyone that knows about the guns needs to be reported as suspects, even if you didn't know guns were stolen.

#2 is the ordinary duty of reasonable care particular to the facts of this case.

 

[ShadeWPI]

You're incorrect. Read the entry I linked to above.

McDonald's was in fact negligent, and the case didn't "open the books for frivolent lawsuits far and wide" because her suit was not frivolous.

Sorry, her case was frivolous (1 injury per 24 million cups of coffee sold) and serving coffee at the National Coffee Brewers recommended coffee temperature AND she placed the cup between her legs AND removed its lid (comprimising its designed structural integrity) to add cream and sugar to the cup.

She just managed to get up in front of a jury and pull on their heart strings with a "somebody needs to pay me for my pain and suffering" sob story and they bought it.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Sorry, her case was frivolous (1 injury per 24 million cups of coffee sold) and serving coffee at the National Coffee Brewers recommended coffee temperature AND she placed the cup between her legs AND removed its lid (comprimising its designed structural integrity) to add cream and sugar to the cup.

She just managed to get up in front of a jury and pull on their heart strings with a "somebody needs to pay me for my pain and suffering" sob story and they bought it.

You're not only wrong, you're so wrong that the rays from the Star of Right don't even reach you. You are a black hole of wrongness.

The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott.[16] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's.

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

 

[dwarven1]