Are You Liable?

[Tommy2Tone]

I was thinking the same thing. The scenario of leaving keys in car, car unlocked, and someone steals it and kills someone in a crash. You would not be liable for that.

 

[medic67]

took to long to write my post,

 

[Timjoebillybob]

"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)."

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.

Thank you.
But may I ask what your opinion would be with the same scenario as you listed but with a person under 18. Could they be held criminally liable? It could be argued that the person recklessly provided the handgun to the minor. Left in the open, unlocked house etc. And could they possibly be held liable in a civil suit for that? ie they could not sue him because of what the minor did with the gun, but for recklessly providing it?

My opinion is that they would be safe from criminal penalties because they had no reason to believe that the minor would be entering and were therefor not recklessly providing it. Same with the civil.

But that is just a layman opinion, and I haven't seen anything in code or case law that confirms/denies it.

IC 35-47-10
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.

 

[ddenny5]

I am not sure but I do believe Indiana does not have a safe storage law on the books for firearms.

 

[WabashMX5]

I don't think over/under 18 makes any difference. The statute you point out talks about "recklessly providing" the gun to a minor. Here, at most, you "negligently" provided it, since the facts don't suggest that you had any idea the convict punk was casing your house or anything.

Also, I think the word "provide" connotes a degree of intent that the minor (or at least some minor) end up in possession.

If the statute said "recklessly causes a minor to come into possession of" a gun, I'd be a bit more concerned -- but much less so under the "recklessly provides" standard.

 

[GuyRelford]

Thank you.
But may I ask what your opinion would be with the same scenario as you listed but with a person under 18. Could they be held criminally liable? It could be argued that the person recklessly provided the handgun to the minor. Left in the open, unlocked house etc. And could they possibly be held liable in a civil suit for that? ie they could not sue him because of what the minor did with the gun, but for recklessly providing it?

My opinion is that they would be safe from criminal penalties because they had no reason to believe that the minor would be entering and were therefor not recklessly providing it. Same with the civil.

But that is just a layman opinion, and I haven't seen anything in code or case law that confirms/denies it.

In our scenario, with the neighbor's kid illegally entering our house and stealing the gun, I believe that the immunity would apply to protect us against civil liability even if he was a minor. I also don't believe the criminal statute would apply, because we didn't "provide" the gun to the minor - recklessly or othewise. He entered our home illegally and stole it. Now, if he were an invitee in our home, and we "recklessly" allowed a firearm to be where he could readily access it, that could potentially be a different story under the criminal statute.

 

[GuyRelford]

I don't think over/under 18 makes any difference. The statute you point out talks about "recklessly providing" the gun to a minor. Here, at most, you "negligently" provided it, since the facts don't suggest that you had any idea the convict punk was casing your house or anything.

Also, I think the word "provide" connotes a degree of intent that the minor (or at least some minor) end up in possession.

If the statute said "recklessly causes a minor to come into possession of" a gun, I'd be a bit more concerned -- but much less so under the "recklessly provides" standard.

Great minds think alike!

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Why can't we, as a society, just place the blame upon those who perform the deeds?

Here's a hypthetical for ya:

You are invited to a friend's house to watch a Colts game. When you arrive, you leave your 1992 Ford Escort unlocked. You're parked in an inclined driveway & the parking brake cable is broken, so you turn the wheels & leave it in gear. While you're inside drinking beer & watching the Colts game, your friend's 10 year old daughter decides to climb into your car & start playing around. She manages to take it out of gear & straightens the wheels. It rolls backwards onto the highway in front of a 15 passenger Chevy van transporting special needs children to a special education co-op.

The daughter is killed instantly, along with 7 passengers in the van. The van driver's airbag & seatbelt saved his life, but he lost both of his legs.

The emergency-room physician appears on local TV & blames the daughter's death on the woeful lack of side-impact beams & air bags in the Ford Escort. Police note poorly maintained brakes & tires on the Chevy van & that it was travelling 4mph over the limit. Design flaws in the Chevy van caused the driver's legs to become crushed. The 7 passengers were killed because the special ed teacher didn't properly close the sliding door when she loaded the children into the back & the fence which the van crashed along managed to enter the rear passenger area of the van after it opened due to the intial impact.

So, who's fault is it?

I say that a lot of people are a little at fault & would (should) feel guilty. But I say the primary fault lies upon the daughter, and by extension, upon her father for not teaching her to respect BOTH the vehicle & the inclined driveway leading directly down to the highway.

Likewise, in GunLawyer's scenario, the only persons at fault are the persons who chose to perform the deed & those responsible for them.

 

[LPMan59]

even if you left the gun laying on the dining room table with your doors unlocked, i wouldnt think you could be held liable regardless of the punk's age because he was not invited into your home.

thats like saying, it wasnt a burglary if i left my door unlocked at night and someone came in and stole all my wife's jewelry. the perp still broke in and took possession of property he wasnt entitled to.

i think it might be different if you invited the kid into your house.

just my $0.02. IANAL.

 

[GuyRelford]

even if you left the gun laying on the dining room table with your doors unlocked, i wouldnt think you could be held liable regardless of the punk's age because he was not invited into your home.

thats like saying, it wasnt a burglary if i left my door unlocked at night and someone came in and stole all my wife's jewelry. the perp still broke in and took possession of property he wasnt entitled to.

i think it might be different if you invited the kid into your house.

just my $0.02. IANAL.

I think you are dead-on correct.

 

[wbjenks]

How about a thief, B&E takes your car keys, drives the car into someone and, as I understand it, the OWNER is liable for damages. Is a firearm any different. Attractive nuisance?

 

[LPMan59]

I think you are dead-on correct.

boo ya! i think i missed my calling in life. i wonder how much law school costs these days.

 

[GuyRelford]

How about a thief, B&E takes your car keys, drives the car into someone and, as I understand it, the OWNER is liable for damages. Is a firearm any different. Attractive nusance?

Yep, firearms are different - under the immunity statute that is specific to firearms.

 

[wbjenks]

Thank you GunLawyer. I should have gone to Law School!

 

[GuyRelford]

boo ya! i think i missed my calling in life. i wonder how much law school costs these days.

Hey, I went at night - while I was busy working days at a real job.

 

[wbjenks]

I worked nights and did 4 years of Seminary!!! Not much pay but the "fire insurance" is supposed to be "everlasting"

 

[cigarman454]

No Charges

A few years back my former boss at that time was home watching TV downstairs. His son and friends were upstairs, they ended up in his room found a gun (loaded) and one of the kids (teenagers) shot and killed his friend by accident. There were no charges filed.
So I think you can keep a loaded gun in the house the kids were snooping where they didn't belong.

 

[GuyRelford]

I worked nights and did 4 years of Seminary!!! Not much pay but the "fire insurance" is supposed to be "everlasting"

That is priceless!! (Literally.)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

My opinion is that they would be safe from criminal penalties because they had no reason to believe that the minor would be entering and were therefor not recklessly providing it.

I also don't believe the criminal statute would apply, because we didn't "provide" the gun to the minor - recklessly or othewise. He entered our home illegally and stole it. Now, if he were an invitee in our home, and we "recklessly" allowed a firearm to be where he could readily access it, that could potentially be a different story under the criminal statute.

i think it might be different if you invited the kid into your house.

Thank you again.
That was my reasoning also. And I almost asked about if the kid was invited in, but I decided not to and just keep the question confined to the original scenario. And I also agree that if he was invited in there might be a problem.

 

[eirish2001]

I'd agree with 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!"