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

[T.Lex]

The repressed memory statute of limitations thing changed about then, too, right? Maybe a bit earlier?

 

[KLB]

So this basically boils down to the gun was property of the Sheriff's Department, so they are responsible?

If he had been on duty and had thrown her a personal weapon would they have been able to sue the Sheriff's Department as well?

 

[HoughMade]

So this basically boils down to the gun was property of the Sheriff's Department, so they are responsible?

If he had been on duty and had thrown her a personal weapon would they have been able to sue the Sheriff's Department as well?

Yes. I don't think this hinges on who owned the firearm. It hinges on whether he was acting as an LEO (which seems doubtful) when he tossed the gun toward her and whether that was negligent.

 

[LPMan59]

So even from the grave special snowflakes are special

 

[BehindBlueI's]

As her husband, is he part of the estate? Could this lead to him getting part of any settlements based on his actions? Civil court is fun.

 

[HoughMade]

As her husband, is he part of the estate? Could this lead to him getting part of any settlements based on his actions? Civil court is fun.

As far as I know, the law is not crystal clear. Did she die intestate? Don't know, but also don't know if it matters on this issue. In Indiana, one can not completely disinherit their spouse (under most circumstances). What I do know is that when a person murders another, they can not benefit from the murder as a beneficiary of the Estate or under any life insurance policies. This is not that. However, there is some common law about being a "constructive trustee" that may come into play. This is a very interesting issue.

 

[Leadeye]

Sad story in so many ways, but in the end it's about one thing.

Always follow the money

 

[MarkC]

As far as I know, the law is not crystal clear. Did she die intestate? Don't know, but also don't know if it matters on this issue. In Indiana, one can not completely disinherit their spouse (under most circumstances). What I do know is that when a person murders another, they can not benefit from the murder as a beneficiary of the Estate or under any life insurance policies. This is not that. However, there is some common law about being a "constructive trustee" that may come into play. This is a very interesting issue.

This situation could be a law school exam question.

I agree it is rather doubtful that he was acting as an LEO. I'm sure the Sheriff doesn't endorse employees putting the habeus grabbus on spouses/significant others during arguments at home.

 

[HoughMade]

...Always follow the money

In the civil litigation biz, that's what we call a tautology....as that's pretty much the only​ thing civil litigation is about to begin with.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm sure the Sheriff doesn't endorse employees putting the habeus grabbus on spouses/significant others during arguments at home.

Stealing this.

This is a very interesting issue.

Understatement of the day.

 

[Alamo]

... I'm sure the Sheriff doesn't endorse employees putting the habeus grabbus on spouses/significant others during arguments at home.

Probably not as a matter of general spousal relations, but it appears not in dispute that she tried to grab the gun while he was wearing it. I would bet it is Sheriff's policy for his deputies to not let people take their guns, regardless of circumstances or duty status. I would also bet there is not a policy that says "sure, give your sidearm to spouses threatening suicide."

 

[Alamo]

... This is a very interesting issue.

This is lawyer-speak for "ka-CHING!".

 

[HoughMade]

This is lawyer-speak for "ka-CHING!".

I HIGHLY doubt that this is upheld on appeal....but stranger things have happened.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Sad story in so many ways, but in the end it's about one thing.

Always follow the money

I know you like posting that...but what else could civil court be about?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

but what else could civil court be about?

Oh! Oh! I know! Call on me, teacher! I'm ever so smart!

 

[dudley0]

I'm not the teacher, but I met him once... so I call on Mr. Freeman to answer the question as long as it does not pertain to money.

 

[Alamo]

I know you like posting that...but what else could civil court be about?

We could make civil court more interesting if we'd bring back dueling as a possible litigation methodology. Of course "dueling" is too simple for legal term, we'd have to call it binding arbitration with prejudice.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Oh! Oh! I know! Call on me, teacher! I'm ever so smart!

*sigh* Go ahead.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

*sigh* Go ahead.

*stands up, fold hands in front*

Well, for example: child custody, CHINS, TPRs, property lines disputes, title as to property, adverse possession, specific performance on contracts, probate (usually money, but can be about title), inter alia.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

*stands up, fold hands in front*

Well, for example: child custody, CHINS, TPRs, property lines disputes, title as to property, adverse possession, specific performance on contracts, probate (usually money, but can be about title), inter alia.

OK, you can go outside and play now.