Victims mother sues gun owner

Respectfully, that's incorrect. The federal court is debating New Hampshire state tort law under its diversity jurisdiction. If they were debating federal tort law, then yes, the 1st Circuit decision would then bind the rest of the circuit to include Massachusetts.

Coincidentally, had the event occured in MA, she probably would have won her case under a theory of negligence per se using 140/131L as a legislatively-enacted standard of care, provided she could still get over the proximate cause hurdle.


The event = the original theft of the firearm? Or the shooting? Both?

If the firearm were stolen in MA and the owner followed the storage law there should be no liability, civil or criminal.

If the firearm were stolen in MA and the owner did not follow the storage law that still should be a separate issue, but I could see the argument.

Bottom line is the firearms was stored in compliance with NH law.

A state has the power to enact (Constitutional) laws concerning actions taking place within it own borders, not in other states.
 
If the firearm were stolen in MA and the owner followed the storage law there should be no liability, civil or criminal.

Doesn't always work that way, see Jupin vs Cask. (Civil).

Storage was compliant enough per MGL (or at least she never got prosecuted for that) but the court basically ruled that if you have guns and a known nutbag in your house, from a civil liability aspect, you are responsible for a higher standard of storage- something that can't be taken apart with a screwdriver.

-Mike
 
The event = the original theft of the firearm? Or the shooting? Both?

If the firearm were stolen in MA and the owner followed the storage law there should be no liability, civil or criminal.

If the firearm were stolen in MA and the owner did not follow the storage law that still should be a separate issue, but I could see the argument.

Bottom line is the firearms was stored in compliance with NH law.

A state has the power to enact (Constitutional) laws concerning actions taking place within it own borders, not in other states.
I don't really understand what you're getting at.

The very limited point of my post was to disagree that a decision in this case is binding on the whole First Circuit because it's my understanding this is not a federal question case--it's a diversity case. That, and since a Federal court sitting in diversity generally interprets the law of state where the act occurred (with some exceptions that don't matter here), the same federal court with the same judge and the same exact facts can reach two completely different decisions under the laws of two different states.
 
Last edited:
I don't really understand what you're getting at.

The very limited point of my post was to disagree that a decision in this case is binding on the whole First Circuit because it's my understanding this is not a federal question case--it's a diversity case. That, and since a Federal court sitting in diversity generally interprets the law of state where the act occurred (with some exceptions that don't matter here), the same federal court with the same judge and the same exact facts can reach two completely different decisions under the laws of two different states.

I was reacting to "Coincidentally, had the event occured in MA, she probably would have won her case under a theory of negligence per se ".

My comment was to the effect that MA can't reach out over a border and hold someone responsible to MA law for something that took place entirely outside MA. They learned this with the Sullivan Tire Sales Tax Debacle not so long ago. I wasn't sure if you meant the "theft", the "shooting" or both.

If the gun owner lived in MA, stored the gun in MA and it was stolen from MA, he could be in trouble if he didn't comply with MA storage law. Or as Mike pointed out, if he had "special circumstances" in his home that required a higher standard.

All the other stuff, what court precedents affect what court short circuits and so on - that stuff I have no idea!
 
I was reacting to "Coincidentally, had the event occured in MA, she probably would have won her case under a theory of negligence per se ".

My comment was to the effect that MA can't reach out over a border and hold someone responsible to MA law for something that took place entirely outside MA. They learned this with the Sullivan Tire Sales Tax Debacle not so long ago. I wasn't sure if you meant the "theft", the "shooting" or both.

If the gun owner lived in MA, stored the gun in MA and it was stolen from MA, he could be in trouble if he didn't comply with MA storage law. Or as Mike pointed out, if he had "special circumstances" in his home that required a higher standard.

All the other stuff, what court precedents affect what court short circuits and so on - that stuff I have no idea!

Gotcha.

As for my point on negligence per se, I believe at least the theft would have to have occurred in Massachusetts. Truth be told if the gun had been stored in MA and used in a NH shooting, I'd have to hit the law books for that one.

FYI, negligence per se basically means civil negligence can be inferred without more simply because there's a criminal law prohibiting such conduct--here, storing a firearm unsecured. So while one may not be held liable in NH, in MA they could face both criminal AND civil penalties for the exact same act in the same court by the same judge in two different cases simply because of where it happened. A bit of an oddity of our federal legal system.
 
Jones is suing the grandfather of the man who killed her son and two other men, alleging that his failure to secure his gun properly enabled his grandson to steal it and use it in the shootings on July 2, 2007.

there you go blaming the spoon again
 
Back
Top Bottom