I'm going to have to disagree...
|
David Hardy reports on an Arizona appellate decision concerning negligent entrustment.
The decision reverses a summary judgement grant (meaning the case will
go to trial), and the facts aren't pleasant: A habitual drunk with an
IQ substantially below average is given a firearm by his father; the
gun is subsequently taken away after it was used in a crime (by the
owner's brother); the owner of the firearm had shot himself
accidentally at least once. The mother eventually returned the
gun to the owner, who used it to shoot and kill someone while
drunk. The owner was charged with manslaughter, and the mother is
being sued for negligent entrustment. All these events involve
adults. While I agree with David that the outcome was foreseeable, albeit not immediately so, I disagree that this means the suit should continue. The owner's parents had no right to possess or control the gun. It was his property. You could make a case for negligent entrustment IF it was an actual transaction rather than a restoration of property to its rightful owner, or if the owner was clearly impaired (drunk) when the firearm was returned. But if he's not presenting an immediate risk, it's his property, end of story. Anything else is to legalize theft "for their own good". We've already seen this tactic in the gun control debate: where do you think all the guns people turn in for gun "buybacks" come from? Nosy girlfriends and parents stealing the property of their family members or boyfriends and turning it in to the authorities. It's sort of like the gestapo posters that used to advise you to turn in your friends for fun and profit. Except that those taking advantage of the programs have to do their own dirty work. |
Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/6854
Gustavo
No comments have been posted so far.
