legal question

[Daniel]

I was wondering the legal liabilty one assumes when you loan a weapon to someone to use if that weapon injures someone accidentally.

[TripleDigitRide]

Not sure, but that's exactly why one should NEVER lend a firearm to ANYONE, for ANY reason.

[Daniel]

In this case Im the lendee and my f-i-l is the lender. he brought the question up and even went so far as to call the local pd and ask although they didnt really know the answer. I was planning to take it to the shoot sunday but if I cant find good news I may have to forgo it. He was going to come along but something came up. Id feel more comfortable about it if he was there as it would be in his control except on the firing line.

Rabbi, if you read this anyway, the release forms we are signing I would think only stop us from pursuing legal matters with the range? or does it cover participants as well?

[Fallguy]

First let me say I don't know the exact legal answer myself. However if the lender gave a weapon to someone when they had knowledge the lendee was going to use it for an unlawful purpose or that lendee was forbidden by law to posses a handgun for whatever reason then I have no doubt the lender would be liable in some form. If the firearm had some type of defect that the lender knew about and didn't fix and/or didn't inform the lendee of, then he may also have some liability

But a fully functional weapon lent in good faith, I don' think the lender would have any type of liability. However that wouldn't prevent a lawsuit from being brought by any means.

However I am not a lawyer and these opinions are simply my own.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Fallguy

[tn hp]

You will have a new name, co-defendant! The possibilities are endless and unless you have the individual sign a waiver of liability and hold harmless agreement, you are a potential defendant. Even with those suggested documents, you are not imune from suit.

Questions to consider before loaning a firearm to someone, beside the obivious legal ownership issues:

For what purpose is the weapon being loaned?

What is the level of experience of the person?

What type of ammunition is to be used?

Where is the weapon to be used?

Is the intended use legal?

How responsible is the person to whom the firearm is to be loaned?

This situation is similiar to loaning your car to someone and they have an accident. The registered owner will be a co-defendant however, an automobile is not considered to be, like a firearm, a dangerous device.

Have I done it, yes. But, I was willing to take the risk based on my many years of friendship with the individual and the fact that I would trust them with my life or the life of my wife or daughter.

You pays your money and you takes your chances. I am an attorney and that is my legal and professional opinion.

Edited March 29, 2008 by tn hp
additional information

[Im Neero]

If you're the lendee, there's an easy solution; don't sue your father in law if you get hurt.

If you're worried about you shooting someone and your father in law getting sued, don't, you'd be the one to get sued and unless the injured party can prove that your father in law was negligent in letting you use the pistol (if you were a convicted felon, for example), he's safe.

As long as you're legally allowed to handle a firearm criminal liability shouldn't be an issue.

I'm not a lawyer though, so my opinion is worth what you payed for it.

[molonlabetn]

I'm no lawyer, just to make that clear, but it would seem to me that any crime which was perpetrated with your weapon would be traceable to you, and you would ultimately be answerable to it if the gun was not reported stolen. Providing a weapon to someone who will commit a crime with it will buy you a conspiracy/aiding-and-abetting charge or something of the like I have no doubt. I wouldn't ever loan a weapon to someone who I didn't trust to only use it in a justifiable manner... but I would loan a weapon to someone who I trusted, and needed it.

[Smith]

I think it is about the same as a car, legally. However, I tend to think it will be viewed a lot more negatively with a gun if it went to court. There are some additional legal issues with a gun if used in a crime and there was some knowledge of it, as stated before.

[Daniel]

This isnt a question on doing something illegal its pretty much an "I want to take his gun to the range and fire it." If someone were to be injured by a ricochet or some other mishap would he be liable along with me?

[Im Neero]

In my opinion, absolutely not, assuming you are not legally prevented from handling the firearm in the first place.

[Fallguy]

This isnt a question on doing something illegal its pretty much an "I want to take his gun to the range and fire it." If someone were to be injured by a ricochet or some other mishap would he be liable along with me?

I don't really see why.

But how would they know he even owned the gun unless you told them? For all anyone else knows he sold it to you that morning since no paperwork is required for a personal sale. If you're that worried about it...buy it from him for a dollar, go shoot it, then sell it back to him for a dollar.

[DaveTN]

This isnt a question on doing something illegal its pretty much an "I want to take his gun to the range and fire it." If someone were to be injured by a ricochet or some other mishap would he be liable along with me?

Everyone involved gets named in a civil suit.

You, your FIL, the range, the ammo manufacturer, everyone and anyone.

The attorneys look for whoever can provide a payday.

If your FIL is the “deep pockets” they may argue that you either had no training or were not properly trained with that weapon and it was reckless or irresponsible of him to loan you that weapon. If you are the deep pockets they will go after you.

There are very few rules here; they can pretty much sue whoever they like.

As far a criminal charges I don’t think you have anything to worry about as long as you are of age and legally allowed to posses a weapon.

DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

Edited March 29, 2008 by DaveTN

[DaveTN]

But how would they know he even owned the gun unless you told them?

Because they would ask him in his deposition.

Edited March 29, 2008 by DaveTN

[Fallguy]

Because they would ask her in her deposition.

Her?!

LOL...true enough. Guess I forget how sue happy everyone is. To be honest, if I got hit by a ricochet at the range, I would just chalk it up to one of those things that can happen and that I made that choice by going to the range. Unless I had observed unsafe practices or that it was intentional in some way by the person.

[DaveTN]

Her?!

Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention.

if I got hit by a ricochet at the range, I would just chalk it up to one of those things that can happen and that I made that choice by going to the range.

That is because you are probably a basically honest person with good morals and values. Unfortunately many people are willing to put those values aside for cash.

That’s why I say we need to remove the liability of store owners before we can get rid of the “no guns allowed†signs. They are simply trying to protect themselves from the civil suit that would occur if there was a shooting on their property.

[Daniel]

Yeah he suggested selling it to me but my wife thinks thats over the top where as i agree that is the only solution.

[Fallguy]

I really don't mean this in a bad way at all....but if you are this worried about the legal consequences of shooting, possessing, carrying a firearm maybe handling a firearm in civilian life is not the right thing for you, at least not one that you don't own yourself, or in public.

I'm not saying one should not be concerned about the legal ramifications of the their actions, but if we tried to figure all the legal possibilities to fruition of all our actions no one would do anything....

[saintsfanbrian]

Okay, I am pretty sure I cannot hold the range liable for a ricochet from another persons gun unless it can be proved that the range provided for inadequate facilities to prevent such an incident.

Also, I have loaned/borrowed guns. It isn't a big deal. Use it and be safe about it. As long as you do your part you should be okay. If the gun is not in good working order I wouldn't use it anyway.

[Guest Revelator]

Junglist, I don't think you have anything to worry about when it comes to your father-in-law's liability. I am an attorney, and while I do not specialize in personal injury I have some familiarity with negligence and liability. In order for your fil to be liable, the plaintiff would have to prove negligent entrustment: that your fil knew or should have known of your propensity for violence or carelessness. Tennessee courts often use this passage from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a legal treatise, in NE cases:

One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.

That's it in a nutshell. If the plaintiff can't prove that they don't have a case. Could your fil still be sued? Yes, and some expense might be incurred early on. It depends on how litigious the plaintiff feels like being. But they probably wouldn't survive a summary judgment motion.

This kind of stuff is good for all gun owners to know. A lot of it is really just common sense. Note also that to "supply" can be to sell, lend, lease, donate, or make bailment to.

Be careful out there.

[Fallguy]

Junglist, I don't think you have anything to worry about when it comes to your father-in-law's liability. I am an attorney, and while I do not specialize in personal injury I have some familiarity with negligence and liability. In order for your fil to be liable, the plaintiff would have to prove negligent entrustment: that your fil knew or should have known of your propensity for violence or carelessness. Tennessee courts often use this passage from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a legal treatise, in NE cases:

One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.

That's it in a nutshell. If the plaintiff can't prove that they don't have a case. Could your fil still be sued? Yes, and some expense might be incurred early on. It depends on how litigious the plaintiff feels like being. But they probably wouldn't survive a summary judgment motion.

This kind of stuff is good for all gun owners to know. A lot of it is really just common sense. Note also that to "supply" can be to sell, lend, lease, donate, or make bailment to.

Be careful out there.

Sounds like the majority of advice that has been given.....but probably more believable since it uses fancy legal terms and references....

[Daniel]

Thanks for the advice. Ill pass it along to all concerned parties. I would like to especially thank the lawyers for giving their advice (just dont send me a bill).