Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court: If you steal somebody's gun, then accidentally shoot yourself and die, your survivors aren't entitled to a cent
By adamg on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 11:47am
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today a gun owner was not liable for the death of a man who stole one of his guns then died when the gun went off as he was putting it back at his sister's insistence.
After Charles Milot died in 2002, his ex-wife, acing as executor of his estate, sued both the gun owner - a family friend who gave Milot a job after he got out of a county jail - and the gun manufacturer, alleging negligence. According to the decision, Milot found the key the man used to lock up his guns, stole two of them and then showed them to his sister. She convinced him to put them back, but in the act of putting one of them back, it went off, severing his left femoral artery, which caused him to quickly bleed to death.
In its ruling, the court said the estate's not entitled to a cent from the gunowner because Milot died while in the commission of a crime: illegal possession of a gun in general and by a convicted felon in particular.
"We conclude that public policy dictates that Milot's criminal conduct acts as a bar to recovery," the court said, citing similar rulings in both Massachusetts and elsewhere, such as one against a burglar who sued a homeowner for negligence because he broke his leg in a fall caused by a missing step down to the cellar and a Milton Academy student who tried to sue his school for failing to keep him from committing statutory rape.
The court added that the gun maker, Glock, was protected as well, both by a federal law that restricts manufacturer liability for what people do with their guns and, again, because Milot was using the gun in an illegal act.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Who in their right mind
Who in their right mind thinks that that is a case you can win? What ever happened to personal responsibility?
Personal responsibility apparently still alive and well
As per the court decision.
Seriously, can all the lazy knee-jerk cycnics lurking UHub save their second-hand outrage for stories where people *don't* get away with it? You probably won't have to wait all that long.
Personal responsibility apparently still alive and well
Jeez Jeff, I think the comment was directed at the fact that someone actually wasted time and probably money thinking this would be a winning strategy. Calm down!
Wasted?
Getting your day in court is a right. Welcome to civilized society.
I think you're thinking of
I think you're thinking of criminal court, rather than civil.
No it's not captain concern troll.
Do you think defending against this ridiculous lawsuit was free? Can you imagine the hassle, money, time, and aggravation this guy and his family had to go through because Mr. Darwin Award's wife and scummy lawyer basically wanted to steal from him again? If personal responsibility were at play in any manner, this lawsuit would have never been filed or even considered. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy is out $10k for lawyers fees at least. But he didn't have to turn over his life savings to the widow of a thief, so it's all OK in your book. The system works!
Kenya
We could do it the Kenyan way. That's pretty cheap.
No judges, juries, or hell, even laws needed. Just opinion, like yours above.
Wouldn't that be a wonderful world.
OK, I'll bite
I don't think you even know what you're talking about as this is a civil suit, not a criminal case. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Show me anywhere in the facts of this case where the gun owner acted negligently. If you can do that, I'll reconsider my opinion that this was a glaring attempt to legally extort money from a crime victim.
Your Kenya meme is weak (should have used Somalia). This isn't about due process, this is about someone being forced to spend their hard earned money to defend against a lawsuit that would never have been brought if the plaintiff had any sense of right and wrong or personal responsibility.
The worst form of justice ever, except for all the others
Apologies to Mr. Churchill.
Yeah, it sucks that they probably had to spend a chunk of money defending themselves. Likely the dead man's ex-wife's lawyer convinced her that the "insurance company would pay for it all". I am with you that this is super-slimy. However, I suspect that the family in whose house the man died are a bit more upset about the whole guy we tried to help bleeding out and dying in our living room part of the story. Your fixation on the money spent is a bit morbid.
People have been unethically trying to get what they aren't entitled to since Grog claim roundish rock belong him, not Brog. So "whatever happened to personal responsibility" is that it is as unequally distributed as ever. Thankfully, now we have a more objective and just system for determining outcomes than "biggest rock win, thinnest skull lose".
If the lawsuit was truly frivolous, I would imagine the insurance company might countersue to reclaim expenses as allowed under Mass law.
This isn't justice. This is a civil suit.
"However, I suspect that the family in whose house the man died are a bit more upset about the whole guy we tried to help bleeding out and dying in our living room part of the story. Your fixation on the money spent is a bit morbid."
Pardon me if I don't shed a tear for the crook who managed to off himself while biting the kind hand that was feeding him. I expect they were upset the guy died in their house. I also suspect that feeling of sadness quickly turned to anger when they received the summons. I don't know about you, but I need money to feed my kids and pay for college, not to throw at legal bills to defend against scumbags looking to screw me a second time. I suspect the people sued weren't so cavalier as you about their hard earned money being siphoned off to lawyers.
"If the lawsuit was truly frivolous, I would imagine the insurance company might countersue to reclaim expenses as allowed under Mass law."
Let me explain how that works out here in the real world:
Client: I want to sue those bastards to reclaim my expenses.
Lawyer: We can do that. But, it will cost another $5,000 for my fee and the target of the suit has no assets.
Client: But we will win the suit!
Lawyer: Yes, but you will never be able to collect any damages. You can't get blood from a turnip.
Client: So what do we do!?
Lawyer: Nothing. Welcome to the real world.
Grind your own axes much?
As this thread goes on, it seems you are most likely upset about something that happened to you in the past. So much so that you could not even parse my comment that the family in whose house this horrible event took place might care more about the violence and trauma in their home - you went right back to the money.
***
The word "justice" is just as applicable to matters civil or criminal - ie, 'the administration of law according to prescribed and accepted principles'. In this case, it worked as most of us want it to - personal responsibility was upheld, and greed was rejected. Messy and imperfect, but I'd like to hear your description of a system that would work better.
UHub Comments
There are two kinds of people: those who make opinionated colorful comments about the news; and those who make opinionated colorful comments about commenters, shooting down people who make opinionated colorful comments about the news for making said comments.
A third kind
The ones who make opinionated colorful comments about things that commenters don't actually say or think.
"Yeah well them libruls are going to say that the trial wasn't fair because the court doesn't consist entirely of organic dolphin-safe lesbian immigrants."
That takes some balls!
So a family friend is nice enough to give a convicted felon a second chance and the guy repays his kindness by stealing his guns. On top of that, they sue him after Mr. Darwin Award is too stupid to clear the firearm, pops himself, and bleeds out. Sounds like his wife is as big a scumbag as he was. I hope she and her lawyer get the karma that's coming to them.
darwin award candidate?
perhaps?
Reminded me of this very popular story:
http://news.yahoo.com/okla-mom-wont-face-charges-s...
Only, this guy shot himself. In the link, the gun owner did the shooting.
what's your point?
You post another situation where the criminal was at fault, not the gun owner! The gun owner did nothing wrong.
I'm just really happy
Really happy two assholes got done in.
I feel bad for the woman in the linked story (who is now one of my biggest heroes, don't care who that pisses off).
I also feel bad for the man who hired this guy, who then stole from him.
It also annoys the hell out of me that the wife of Charles filed a lawsuit. Just imagine the family of the man that Sarah killed decides to file a suit.
In short, criminal assholes piss me off.
That poor woman
As if life hadn't flung enough at her already at 18. 3 month old infant, recently widowed, and jerks breaking in assuming she must have a stash of oxycontin.
And it was taking over 20 minutes for help to arrive.
Disagree with first-degree murder charge for accomplice
First-degree murder should generally be limited to the premeditated or wantonly cruel taking of another person's life, in my opinion. This business of charging someone with it because an accomplice died in a criminal joint venture doesn't really seem rational to me. You should have to have actually killed someone to be charged with first degree murder.
What do you suppose they do with the accomplice?
Might a lesser charge let him out of jail sooner? Is he likely to repeat (I sure hope he's not that stupid) this attempted crime? What do you propose is done with someone like him? He surely wasn't there to help this woman.
You may not like it, but it
You may not like it, but it is perfectly rational. The rational decision was made to let people know ahead of time that they will be held responsible for any deaths resulting from their choice to engange in a crime. The whole point is deterrence - that's a good thing, no? When you've trying to knock someone's door in to rob them of drugs, there's a pretty good chance that someone is going to get hurt. These two low-lifes entered into this escapade together after having considered it. They brought a hunting knife. Both of them knew that someone might die. Someone did. Joint responsibility for a death during such a crime is perfectly rational. You could choose to say it goes too far, but you can't say that it isnt' rational. If they pulled someome off the street randomly and assigned the guilt to them, that would not be rational.
I wonder if it ever works
Deterrence is a good thing, yes. It just didn't work this time, did it?
Backatcha?
So will the gun owner now sue the estate for expenses incurred for the cleanup of the mess the guy made by bleeding out in front of the gun cabinet? Servicemaster costs a good bit more than Merry Maids.
No
Because homeowner/renter insurance would cover such a thing, and people who don't insure their property deserve to have to pay when shit happens to it! ;-)
HA!
That's like the time Biff spilled his beer on himself, while crashing George McFly's car.
George: Biff can, can I assume that your uh insurance is going to pay for the damage?
Biff: My insurance?! It's your car! Your insurance should pay for it... Aye, I want to know who's gonna to pay for this. I spilled beer all over when that car smashed into me! Who's gonna to pay my cleaning bill?