Ricochet liability?

[Shifty]

If you are shooting on private land, and no local or state ordinance on shooting is violated, how would a ricochet that causes property damage be viewed?

Would it be a civil or criminal affair if taken to trial?

 

[Charlie Horse]

If no law was violated, by definition, it wouldn't be criminal. If somehow you damaged property, then you can be sued for that.

 

[WestKentucky]

Depends on state and local laws. May be pursued as criminal negligence, may be strictly civil. Rob ably the biggest factor other than local law is the damage. Damaged people tend to gripe a lot more than damaged goods, and they get treated very differently.

 

[blarby]

If you are shooting on private land, and no local or state ordinance on shooting is violated, how would a ricochet that causes property damage be viewed?

You would be liable for that damage.

Your liability starts when you pull the trigger, and ends when and where the bullet stops.
(barring EPA liability for lead)

Would it be a civil or criminal affair if taken to trial?

Depends on the circumstances. I could give you examples of both.

Given that you are in CA, presume a criminal response to anything you do with a firearm.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If you are shooting on private land, and no local or state ordinance on shooting is violated, how would a ricochet that causes property damage be viewed?...

It would most likely not be a criminal issue. However, if you are shooting on private land and one of your gunshots cause physical injury to another or property damage, there is the probability that you could be held civilly liable to pay money damages in compensation for the harm caused.

In general, persons discharging a firearm are held to a very high standard of care. For example:

• Corn v. Sheppard, 179 Minn. 490 (Minn., 1930), at 493:

  ...Firearms are recognized as such dangerous instrumentalities that, where a person has a gun in his hands and it is discharged, even accidentally and unintentionally, he is held liable for the injuries caused thereby, unless he shows that he took all reasonable precautions to guard against accidents, and that the discharge of the weapon did not result from any careless act on his part. Castle v. Duryee, *41 N. Y. 169; Hankins v. Watkins, 77 Hun, 360, 28 N. Y. S. 867; Tally v. Ayres, 3 Sneed (35 Tenn.) 677; Morgan v. Cox, 22 Mo. 373, 66 Am. Dec. 623; Judd v. Ballard, 66 Vt. 668, 30 A. 96; Welch v. Durand, 36 Conn. 182, 4 Am. Rep. 55; Seltzer v. Saxton, 71 Ill. App. 229; Harrison v. Allen, 179 Ill. App. 520; Cole v. Fisher, 11 Mass. 137; Annear v. Swartz, 46 Okl. 98, 148 P. 706, L. R. A. 1915E, 267; Harper v. Holcomb, 146 Wis. 183, 130 N. W. 1128; Bahel v. Manning, 112 Mich. 24, 70 N. W. 327, 36 L. R. A. 523, 67 Am. St. Rep. 381.
  
  The rule is stated in 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 519, as follows: "Where an injury occurs from the discharge of a gun or other firearm, he by whom it was discharged, in order to excuse himself from liability for the injury, must show that the discharge was absolutely without his fault, and that it happened by inevitable accident." See, also, 40 Cyc. 872, and 11 R. C. L. 689....

  
  
• Jensen v. Minard, 282 P.2d 7 (California Supreme Court, 1955), at 8:

  ... By reason of the dangerous nature of such weapons, a person handling them is held to a high degree of care. If he has not used the degree of care appropriate to the circumstances, and injury results, he will be liable to the person injured * * *.' Rudd v. Brynes, 156 Cal. 636, 641, 105 P. 957, 959, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 134; see also, Cucinella v. Weston Biscuit Co., 42 Cal.2d 71, 75, 265 P.2d 513; Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 71 Cal.App.2d 217, 221, 162 P.2d 486....

What will constitute appropriate care will be dependent on the totality of the circumstances, giving due consideration for the inherently dangerous nature of firearms. Whether or not in a particular case a shooter has exercised sufficient care to avoid foreseeable injury or damage will be subject to being decided by a jury based on all the evidence.

Given that you are in CA, presume a criminal response to anything you do with a firearm.

Complete drivel. Do you have any actual evidence for that kind of nonsense?

 

[blarby]

Complete drivel. Do you have any actual evidence for that kind of nonsense?

Someone was bound to say it, I just wanted to be the first one to say it this time.

Demerit taken.

Given my experiences with CA LE, I too, know that its drivel. But its the internet, right ?

 

[au_prospector]

As you can see by the above responses ~ your pair of questions are wide open to the imagination. What happened?

 

[Slamfire]

You can read about the sentence,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/joe-mccarthy-sentenced-ve_n_665394.html

You can read the appeal the guy is making from prison:

Defendant appeals from his conviction of involuntary manslaughter following a jury trial. Defendant set up a dangerous shooting range on his property and invited others to join him in firing weapons at the site. An errant bullet struck and killed a neighbor in his nearby home....

Behind the target area was a stone and rock wall approximately one to two feet high. Several trees were slightly in front of the rock wall. Beyond the wall was a sparsely wooded area about 200 feet deep, and beyond that were open fields. The landscape to the south rose slightly and gradually, but there were no significant hills or anything else to act as a berm behind the wooded area.

4. Approximately 250 yards from the shooting bench, in the general direction of the targets, was a home belonging to the Reiss family. From the shooting bench, the difference in angle to the target versus to the Reiss home was only six degrees. The difference in elevation between a shot at the target and a shot at the Reiss home was less than two inches. As a consequence, if a shooter pointed the gun barrel three inches to the right of the target that was forty-three yards away, and just under an inch up, the shot would hit the neighbor’s house.

5. The Reiss house was visible from a mowed path leading down to the shooting area. One of the members of the group noted the neighboring house, and defendant assured him that the trees and hills behind the targets made the shooting arrangement safe. By his own admission, defendant had no way of knowing whether he or his fellow shooters would consistently hit their targets, or whether either of his friends were good shooters. Defendant also acknowledged that he should have been aware of the fact that a bullet could go high and to the right, leaving nothing to stop it.

6. Members of the group took turns firing a variety of firearms, including rifles with maximum ranges of over two miles. One of these rifles was a SKS-style semi-automatic rifle. Three people, including defendant, fired the SKS. Although he had recently taken a hunter safety course, defendant himself had little experience with high-powered rifles.

7. Toward the end of the group’s shooting session, the neighbor, John Reiss, was eating dinner in his home when he was killed by an errant bullet fired from defendant’s shooting range. The fatal bullet was fired from the SKS rifle.

8. Defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter. The information alleged that he unlawfully caused Reiss’s death and acted with criminal negligence by setting up a shooting range in an inherently dangerous location and by allowing for the discharge of rifles in that location in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2304. Following a jury trial, which included a site visit, the jury found defendant guilty. After the trial court denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial, defendant appealed.

49. In this case, defendant’s set-up of his shooting range and his invitation to others whose shooting capabilities were largely unknown to him was criminally negligent because it created a serious risk of the very harm that came to pass. Although defendant may not have fired the fatal bullet, his actions set in motion a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, culminating in the victim’s death. Neither the participation of other shooters at the range nor the errant firing of a bullet constituted an entirely separate chain of events; their firing high-powered rifles in the direction of the victim’s home was part and parcel of the chain of events set in motion by defendant’s actions. See Gallimore v. Commonwealth, 436 S.E.2d 421, 425-26 (Va. 1993) (affirming manslaughter conviction of woman who fabricated story about alleged kidnapping and urged husband and brother of putative victim to get perpetrators, where ensuing altercation and discharge of a gun, resulting in a death, were readily foreseeable consequences of defendant’s criminal negligence). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s conviction.[3]


http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/supct/current/op2010-297.html

Text from Government Court Document, not subject to copyright.

One way to become well informed about the laws of your state is to kill or injure someone with a firearm!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Not a ricochet issue, but still very similar to what is described in the OP. No ill intent to do harm, but a gun range lost $175K because of damage to a house located down range from it.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/couple-awarded-175k-over-stray-bullets-nearby-gun-range

 

[rcmodel]

The old saying 'You own every bullet you shoot' generally applies.

And every bullet you shoot has a lawyer attached too it too.

You shoot it, you are responsible for what it ends up hitting.

rc

 

[Archangel14]

I'm a lawyer in California. If you're lawfully on land and in an area where shooting is not barred by ordinance, and your bullet damages property, the likely outcome is that it will be civil in nature. In that case, even lawfully shooting a firearm can be attacked as having been "negligent", which can lead to liability for property damage. That would only lead to you having to pay reasonable value to repair or replace the damaged property. It would depend on the circumstances of each particular case.

NOW also keep in mind that California does have a criminal negligent discharge of a firearm law. But again, if you are not violating a particular statute or ordinance, the issue of whether you "negligently" discharged a firearm would be analyzed by the facts of the individual case. Drunk and firing a handgun downward near to a sidewalk would be a very different animal from someone who took care in using a well set-up private range, but had a freak errant round.

Hope that helps.....that'll be $275. Mail the check to RCmodel. I owe him at least that for all the excellent advice he has given me over time!

 

[Frank Ettin]

....keep in mind that California does have a criminal negligent discharge of a firearm law. But again, if you are not violating a particular statute or ordinance, the issue of whether you "negligently" discharged a firearm would be analyzed by the facts of the individual case. Drunk and firing a handgun downward near to a sidewalk would be a very different animal from someone who took care in using a well set-up private range, but had a freak errant round....

Criminal liability would have to be based on conduct found to be "grossly negligent" or "willful, wanton, and reckless", i. e., conduct reflecting a level of carelessness or recklessness notably beyond mere negligence. It is sometimes characterized as a reckless disregard for the safety of others.

The case described in post 8 is a good example of conduct which could be found by a jury to be willful, wanton, and reckless -- conduct in reckless disregard for the safety of others.

 

[Jim K]

In a case in VA, two men thought a bale of hay would stop bullets from a.44 Magnum revolver. They were wrong, and bullets damaged a house in the background (no one was hurt). They were charged with negligent discharge of a firearm, a crime, and pleaded guilty; they were fined, but could have been imprisoned.

So negligent shooting can be a criminal offense as well as result in civil action.

Jim

P.S. The really bad part that incident was that those two men can no longer own any kind of modern gun, ever. Obviously, I want everyone to shoot safely, but keep in mind that one mistake, even if no one is hurt, can mean giving up your guns.

JK

 

[Frank Ettin]

In a case in VA, two men thought a bale of hay would stop bullets from a.44 Magnum revolver. They were wrong, and bullets damaged a house in the background (no one was hurt). They were charged with negligent discharge of a firearm, a crime, and pleaded guilty; they were fined, but could have been imprisoned.

So negligent shooting can be a criminal offense as well as result in civil action....

I would analyze that case as an example of willful, wanton, and reckless conduct. Relying on a hay bale as a backstop goes well beyond an ordinary lack of due care, especially when the cases are saying that the standard of care for the discharge of a firearm is very high.

The hay bale case is much like the case described in post 8.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Here's some more info from the case quoted in Post 8, which is far more relevant to the discussion at hand. This is the ruling from the Supreme Court of Vermont (SCV), in denying Joseph McCarthy's appeal:

¶ 42. In this case, ample evidence supported the jury’s finding of criminal negligence. The State presented evidence that the targets at the range set up at defendant’s home and under his supervision were oriented such that if a shooter pointed the gun barrel three inches to the right of the target that was forty-three yards away and just under an inch above the target, the shot would hit the neighbor’s house. A relatively small error in aim could lead to catastrophic results. The range had an inappropriate backstop made up of low rocks, which would easily ricochet bullets; the few larger trees and stumps on the property were inadequate to stop a bullet from leaving the range; and there was no berm or hill behind the targets sufficient to stop bullets. Moreover, the targets were positioned at a higher elevation than the shooting bench, making it less likely that bullets that missed the target would hit the ground. A certified hunter education instructor who had worked for Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife for thirty-two years testified that the only gun that could be used safely in such a range was a pellet gun or a BB gun. Into this venue, defendant invited others, whom he did not know to be good shooters, to shoot powerful rifles completely unsuited to the setting.
¶ 43. These dangers were easily ascertainable, and the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant’s conduct constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have observed. The State’s hunter safety instructor testified in detail about the hunter safety course that defendant had completed ten days before the shooting and testified that an individual who had conscientiously completed the hunter education class would have been aware of the risks that were presented by the range.
¶ 44. Defendant himself acknowledged that he knew that one should determine what lies beyond one’s target and make sure there is an adequate backstop when hunting or target practicing; he knew that he should have been aware of the potential for ricocheting bullets; he was aware that the line of fire was oriented in the direction of the Reiss home; that he should have done more “looking around” before setting up the range; that he had not consulted the hunter safety guidebook to see if his range was a good idea; that he had minimal experience with the more powerful rifles that his friends brought; that he should have but did not ask about the caliber or velocity of the bullets in those guns; that he did not know the shooting ability of two of the friends that he had invited to shoot; and that he did not know if they or he would be able to hit the targets consistently.
¶ 45. Defendant realized that the SKS rifle was “a pretty powerful gun,” which meant that it was capable of sending a bullet to a target at a very high energy rate, and understood that if he missed the target and there was nothing to stop it, the bullet would keep going for a very long way. He also recognized the importance of muzzle control and understood that if he moved the muzzle even a little bit, the bullet could go significantly off-target. Defendant was concerned when his friend shot the SKS rifle, but the group nonetheless continued to shoot this gun.
¶ 46. While defendant did not intend to harm his neighbor, the jury could reasonably conclude from the State’s evidence that defendant disregarded a substantial risk of death and injury and that his failure to perceive this risk involved a gross deviation from the standard of care observed by reasonable people.

The full text of that decision is here:
http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/supct/current/op2010-297.html