Suicidal IL Woman Buys Ammunition Without FOID Card--Husband Sues

[lysander]

I don't know if you'd call this ethical or moral or what but I think in a marriage you do take on some responsibility for your partners well being when they become incapable of ensuring it themselves. If you have a mentally infirm spouse you take on additional responsibilities for caring for them just as you would with supervising a child. You don't leave a gun accessible to your mentally ill spouse any more than you'd leave draino in the playpen. Legal liability - no, but as far as just doing the right thing, yes.

Insofar as the husband is concerned, I agree with you. What we don't know is to what extent he went to secure his firearms.

I'm certain, that if a national law was passed requiring gun owners who shared homes with people who have been treated for mental illness, or have been prescribed medication for anxiety/depression what have you, that mandated all firearms be moved out of the home...many THR members would be up in arms. (pun intended)

 

[whosyrdaddy]

What we don't know is to what extent he went to secure his firearms.

Correct. But, assuming his wife was not a locksmith, safe cracker, and hadn't enlisted the help of others, his precautions were insufficient. He should not only be barred from suing Wal-Mart, he should be facing a charge of negligent homicide.

 

[lysander]

But, assuming his wife was not a locksmith, safe cracker, and hadn't enlisted the help of others, his precautions were insufficient.

Were the precautions insufficient or did his precautions fail? As part of his precautions, he emptied his house of ammunition, relying on the legal backstop of the FOID to prevent his wife from driving to the local Wally World and buying ammo. We don't know anymore than that. The jury will hear the evidence and make the call.

We certainly know that Walmart was insufficient. In their training. In their staffing. In their willingness to observe the law. As a consequence, they open themselves up to liability.

....and don't worry...as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the jury will more than likely bounce this case. Despite what everyone thinks, jackpot justice doesn't exists, juries are stingy and largely unsympathetic.

 

[whosyrdaddy]

Were the precautions insufficient or did his precautions fail?

Makes no difference. If your attempts to contain your dog fail then you will be held liable because failure does not relieve you of the legal burden to maintain control of your dog.

 

[GRB]

um, so why didn't the guy lock up his gun knowing his wife was a little cuckoo?

Maybe just so she would kill herself, it is a possibility I suppose. If it was an oversight on hos part, he apparently is now maybe trying to assuage his guilt by blaming someone else. That is America for you - sue happy.

 

[jdorian]

All things aside, the clerk violated state law. I'm not sure if the clerk should be liable for anything beyond that part. Its pretty much the same as if the clerk sold alcohol or tobacco to an underage person. Its a civil fine and in many states involves a hearing at a state agency which normally results in a slight black mark on the store's record. After multiple violations, the fines may or may not increase, and after a certain amount of violations, the individual store's license to sell might be suspended or revoked. Normally when it gets close to that point, most stores just sell it to a new owner and the "record" starts "fresh".

 

[lysander]

Makes no difference. If your attempts to contain your dog fail then you will be held liable because failure does not relieve you of the legal burden to maintain control of your dog.

It actually does make a difference...because the standards for liability would be different in each case. Dog bites in Illinois are handled by statute. Typically the first bite is "free." The standard for dog bites is not what you state above...your standard is akin to strict liability and typically does not apply to domesticated animals like dogs.

...Ligers yes....dogs no.

This lawsuit is not grounded in strict liability, it is grounded in negligence. Specifically, a type of negligence claim that turns on the violation of an existing state law. Walmart could have avoided this lawsuit in several ways, the most obvious being to stay out of the guns and ammo business. However, they could also have spent more money to train their people and to create procedures to prevent this sort of thing. Failing to do so has exposed them to a liability risk.

Now, as far as the constitutionality of the FOID act goes...you aren't going to beat it with an commerce clause argument. The act has scads of exceptions for out of staters, it allows for out of staters to sell ammo to IL residents, etc. In short it doesn't "substantially effect" interstate commerce. The Illinois RBKA is "subject only to the police power", so the FOID doesn't overreach there either.

....them is the breaks...