Neg. Entrustment of firearm case- Sheriff Dept. found liable

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    Just a thought, if your wife threatens suicide, no matter how many times and no matter how frustrating she is, don't toss her your service weapon even if she has her own service weapon. There is now a pending Motion to Correct Error. Barring a settlement, appeal sure to follow:


    attachment.php
     

    dudley0

    Nobody Important
    Rating - 100%
    99   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    3,725
    113
    Grant County
    I don't get it... besides the fact that anyone can sue for anything.

    How does her estate (family?) sue and win saying it was his fault that she offed herself?
     

    Rookie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Sep 22, 2008
    18,155
    113
    Kokomo
    I don't get it... besides the fact that anyone can sue for anything.

    How does her estate (family?) sue and win saying it was his fault that she offed herself?

    Because this is America and there's no such thing as being responsible for your own actions.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    I don't get it... besides the fact that anyone can sue for anything.

    How does her estate (family?) sue and win saying it was his fault that she offed herself?

    This is why there are appeals.

    However, as a general principle, not saying it necessarily applies here, if the duty that is violated is the duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent self-harm, the fact that there is self-harm, does not cut off liability. If it did, there would be no redress for the violation of the duty.

    ...Juries sure are fickle beasts.

    Oh, do I have stories.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Note also the plaintiffs dismissed the claims against the guy who provided the handgun but continued after his (and her) employer, the deep-pocketed sheriff's department?

    Although it might not be really relevant to the instant case, if she were of such a mind that she was often threatening suicide, was it negligent for the SO to keep her in employment?
     

    BogWalker

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 5, 2013
    6,305
    63
    I can halfway understand the suit against the officer, but I see no way at all that the lawsuit against the department has a leg to stand on. I doubt they knew anything about his home life, and unless we got some Minority Report stuff going on there's no way they could know the officer would toss her a gun.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    Note also the plaintiffs dismissed the claims against the guy who provided the handgun but continued after his (and her) employer, the deep-pocketed sheriff's department?

    When I was a young pup of a lawyer, you couldn't do this. Allowing the agent to be dismissed without dismissing the principle on a pure respondeat superior case is messed up.

    Although it might not be really relevant to the instant case, if she were of such a mind that she was often threatening suicide, was it negligent for the SO to keep her in employment?

    Yeah, who knows what they knew, but if they did- good point.

    I can halfway understand the suit against the officer, but I see no way at all that the lawsuit against the department has a leg to stand on. I doubt they knew anything about his home life, and unless we got some Minority Report stuff going on there's no way they could know the officer would toss her a gun.

    Respondeat superior has nothing to do with what the employer knew. It only matters that he was acting in the course and scope of his employment when the negligence occurred (surely to be an issue on appeal). If you get in a car accident with a UPS truck when the driver is on his route, for UPS to be liable, they don't have to know how the driver was driving at the time.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    When I was a young pup of a lawyer, you couldn't do this. Allowing the agent to be dismissed without dismissing the principle on a pure respondeat superior case is messed up.

    Right? Now you have what used to be a defendant who has a whole lot of motivation to help the plaintiff stick it to what was his co-defendant. So wrong, on so many levels....
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    Right? Now you have what used to be a defendant who has a whole lot of motivation to help the plaintiff stick it to what was his co-defendant. So wrong, on so many levels....

    Yep.

    Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d 365 (Ind. 1999).

    In 1999, the Ind. Sup. Ct. was very hard on defendants.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,093
    113
    Texas
    +11 to all the "this is messed up" comments above, plus I was mildly astounded about the claim that when the husband grabbed her after she went for his gun, he was suddenly acting in his official capacity and therefore the department was responsible for everything he did.... whoa. What a reach to get to the department's coffers. Apparently it worked tho.
     

    BogWalker

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 5, 2013
    6,305
    63
    Respondeat superior has nothing to do with what the employer knew. It only matters that he was acting in the course and scope of his employment when the negligence occurred (surely to be an issue on appeal). If you get in a car accident with a UPS truck when the driver is on his route, for UPS to be liable, they don't have to know how the driver was driving at the time.
    I'm talking about the claim where it says "the estate blamed the Sheriff's Department for negligently entrusting the weapon to John". No way the sheriffs department could have any inkling entrusting him with a weapon was negligent. I believe this is a separate claim to that of respondeat superior.

    But hey, IANAL ;)
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Yep.

    Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d 365 (Ind. 1999).

    In 1999, the Ind. Sup. Ct. was very hard on defendants.

    I actually just read the case (it was a short read). Wow, big pro-plaintiff departure from the common law, with the goal of "encouraging settlement."
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    I'm talking about the claim where it says "the estate blamed the Sheriff's Department for negligently entrusting the weapon to John". No way the sheriffs department could have any inkling entrusting him with a weapon was negligent. I believe this is a separate claim to that of respondeat superior.

    But hey, IANAL ;)

    The issue is whether John negligently entrusted his weapon to her. There's an argument to be made for that. Where the theory breaks down is where they have to prove that John was acting in the course and scope of his employment when he did it. The whole idea of respondeat superio. is that the employer did not have to, itself, be negligent. It can be negligent through its employees
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    I actually just read the case (it was a short read). Wow, big pro-plaintiff departure from the common law, with the goal of encouraging settlement.

    There's nothing quite like finishing law school, studying for and passing the bar and then having what were settled areas of the law changed. This was only one of them in 1999.
     

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    524,489
    Messages
    9,794,217
    Members
    53,638
    Latest member
    Dhlawson
    Top Bottom