Ella's parents suing Noblesville shooter's parents

[MrsGungho]

I'm sorry but i have nothing but contempt for people/parents like these. I
But hey, this is America, any time you can put free money in your pocket go for it right?
And if they win the lawsuit, as they're stuffing their pockets with that cash they'll lie and say it's about justice.
I feel bad for the people who got hurt but this is disgusting.

what is disgusting about it?
Stop to think of the medical bills this family is facing.
The years of therapy ahead for their daughter. mental and physical.
I don't see this as free money, I see this as trying to get help covering the mounting expenses that are their life now, for sending their daughter to school.

 

[Ziggidy]

We have slowly moved into the new age of responsibility. We keep moving, we will never completely get fully there, but we keep edging up.

No one is responsible for their actions, but we hold everyone else responsible.

We all hate money trails, unless I benefit from it; and if there is no money trail, let's create one.

I spill hot coffee, let's make a money trail. Just in case you baby drowns in a Home Depot 5 gallon bucket, we'll put a warning label on it. Blah blah blah

What kind of world have we allowed the ignorant people to create?

 

[Ark]

Strangely , none of this is what we are talking about, is it?

No one is accountable?​

Dude, WHY are you so desperate to see more people thrown in prison? The individual is responsible for the crime, period. Your "accountability" is putting the shooter in prison, the end.

 

[bwframe]

Dude, WHY are you so desperate to see more people thrown in prison? The individual is responsible for the crime, period. Your "accountability" is putting the shooter in prison, the end.

So the "parents" have no responsibility for raising a murderer and arming him?

What if your kids are the next victims of a school shooter?

 

[Fargo]

So the "parents" have no responsibility for raising a murderer and arming him?

What if your kids are the next victims of a school shooter?

This is the same really dangerous logic you used to condemn the parents of the girls murdered in Delphi. It seems to be a half consequentialist and half a denial of agency, all based off some third party doing something bad.

Good parents can have bad kids and bad things can happen to the kids of good parents. You wield a measure you had best hope you never are measured by.

 

[bwframe]

This is the same really dangerous logic you used to condemn the parents of the girls murdered in Delphi. It seems to be a half consequentialist and half a denial of agency, all based off some third party doing something bad.

Good parents can have bad kids and bad things can happen to the kids of good parents. You wield a measure you had best hope you never are measured by.

Yep, it's a dangerous world where you are held accountable for your actions.

Maybe your kids get to live vs die though?

 

[Fargo]

Yep, it's a dangerous world where you are held accountable for your actions.

Maybe your kids get to live vs die though?

You really believe you have that level of control?

 

[bwframe]

You really believe you have that level of control?

It's called parenting. That's the job and the responcibility.

 

[cb46184]

I'm too old for this. I grew up pre-1968. My dad was a gun "nut." There were guns and ammo in unlocked closets all over the house. There were public accesable gun ranges all over the place and my dad and I visited them often even when I was to little to do anything but watch. I shot my first "high power" rifle at age 7. I learned how to load and fire all sorts of firearms. Once, believe it or not, I was even able to take one of the military rifles to school for show and tell (of course with my dad's supervision). Don't take me wrong, it was a different (and better) time. I didn't play video games. I didn't have baby sitters. I didn't go to day care as my mother fulfilled that role. I had BB guns and pellet rifles. My buddies and I would terrorize the woods just outside of town. I never shot anyone's eye out or even broke a window. I could go on but I'm sure most are too bored at this point to read any further.

 

[Fargo]

It's called parenting. That's the job and the responcibility.

Calling for more state in my parenting and gun ownership is no such thing.

The “Bwframe Demands Action” thing is one of the most statist ideas advocated on this site.

Bad stuff happening does not mean more .gov is automatically the answer, often .gov just makes it worse. Bad stuff happens sometimes and acting like anyone has the ability to truly control that is begging for totalitarianism.

 

[bwframe]

Calling for more state in my parenting and gun ownership is no such thing.

The “Bwframe Demands Action” thing is one of the most statist ideas advocated on this site.

Bad stuff happening does not mean more .gov is automatically the answer, often .gov just makes it worse. Bad stuff happens sometimes and acting like anyone has the ability to truly control that is begging for totalitarianism.

Right. Did you tire of calling me an anti-gunner, as you did upthread? Is this the next bit of name calling?

I'm not calling for govt anything. Just saying that people should be held accountable for their negligence. They should know that they will be held accountable for their negligence so that they won't be negligent.



It's way simpler than some are trying to make it...
If your child uses your gun to murder people, to some degree it is also your fault.

 

[HoughMade]

Depends. When a criminal act is involved, liability insurance may or may not cover it - depends on many factors - policy wording, coverage limits, what they are being sued for (a criminal act, or not), how good their lawyer is, and how badly the insurance company wants to fight it. (Worked in the insurance industry for a number of years and am familiar with policy provisions, but can't say that I ever encountered this situation.)

Parents are not being accused of a criminal act.

Insurance won't cover the intentional acts of the shooter, but likely will cover any negligence of the parents...which, of course, have the same damages.

There is no way, in a civil suit, the plaintiff would accuse the parents of an intentional act. You don't plead yourself out of insurance coverage.

This is not my first rodeo in this arena.

 

[HoughMade]

Oh, and this should explain why finding some sort of negligence on the part of the parents rather than just holding them liable for what the child did is so important:

Except as provided in section 2 of this chapter, a parent is liable for not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) in actual damages arising from harm to a person or damage to property knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly caused by the parent's child if:
(1) the parent has custody of the child; and
(2) the child is living with the parent.

Ind. Code § 34-31-4-1.

 

[mmpsteve]

Oh, and this should explain why finding some sort of negligence on the part of the parents rather than just holding them liable for what the child did is so important:

Except as provided in section 2 of this chapter, a parent is liable for not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) in actual damages arising from harm to a person or damage to property knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly caused by the parent's child if:
(1) the parent has custody of the child; and
(2) the child is living with the parent.

Ind. Code § 34-31-4-1.

Assuming the key was not in the safe, and the parents had no knowledge that the shooter knew where it was, it's a hard argument to make that they knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly contributed to the shooting, and thus, the suit fails. (if these are the facts, which I do not know)

Except, nowadays, a jury might find negligence due to just the fact the parents owned a gun, regardless how the kid gained access.



.

 

[HoughMade]

Assuming the key was not in the safe, and the parents had no knowledge that the shooter knew where it was, it's a hard argument to make that they knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly contributed to the shooting, and thus, the suit fails. (if these are the facts, which I do not know)

Except, nowadays, a jury might find negligence due to just the fact the parents owned a gun, regardless how the kid gained access.

.

No, no. Don't confuse the issues here.

Under this statute, if the child is found to have knowingly, intentionally or recklessly harmed another, the parents are liable without regard to their own fault up to $5,000.

If the parents actions were negligent, this is not governed by the statute and is a completely separate issue. They could, theoretically, be held liable to the full extent of whatever damages are determined- no limit.

 

[mmpsteve]

Thanks for the clarification. I did read that wrong.

 

[LP1]

Parents are not being accused of a criminal act.

Insurance won't cover the intentional acts of the shooter, but likely will cover any negligence of the parents...which, of course, have the same damages.

There is no way, in a civil suit, the plaintiff would accuse the parents of an intentional act. You don't plead yourself out of insurance coverage.

This is not my first rodeo in this arena.

Possible scenario: Multi-million dollar judgement, policy limit on homeowners is a typical $300-500k (maybe even up to $1M or so with umbrella), but parents have some assets beyond that. What then?

Considering the anger about this situation, I could see the plaintiffs settling for what the insurance will pay to be a very unpopular decision.

 

[bwframe]

No, no. Don't confuse the issues here.

Under this statute, if the child is found to have knowingly, intentionally or recklessly harmed another, the parents are liable without regard to their own fault up to $5,000.

If the parents actions were negligent, this is not governed by the statute and is a completely separate issue. They could, theoretically, be held liable to the full extent of whatever damages are determined- no limit.

Who administers this and why have we not heard about this as of yet?

 

[HoughMade]

Who administers this and why have we not heard about this as of yet?

It's a limit on damages when a lawsuit is brought. The judge will not enter judgment against the parents for more than $5,000 if the child is found liable.

This is why they are suing the parents directly, accusing them of their own negligence.

Why haven't you heard about it?

I don't know. You have now.

 

[bwframe]

Parents scared, but relieved no students hurt in Richmond school shooting