Are there liabilities in loaning a firearm?

[Bang!]

In this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=795600 , discussing loaning firearms, are you responsible if things happen? What kind of things could make you culpable? For example, if you loan someone your car you are responsible for any accidents that may happen. Is this something we should consider when loaning firearms? An open end/box end wrench is one thing, firearms are something totally different I would think.

 

[Sam1911]

Directly, under black letter law? No. Not in any jurisdiction I know of, so long as the person you loaned to wasn't in a class of "prohibited persons" and so long as they did not give you some warning of whatever bad thing they were about to do with that gun.



Now...if you have some reason to think this acquaintence has a beef with someone and wants to settle it, or has been getting real shifty-eyed, only comes out at night, and lives in a room plastered with news clippings about the local school board or something ... yeah, somebody might get real curious about your decision to give that guy a gun.

Remember, anybody can sue anybody else for anything. And sometimes it works.

 

[Bang!]

Thanks.

Can't stop chuckling over that second paragraph. That was great.

The last statement has bit me twice so a little gun shy.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=795600 , discussing loaning firearms, are you responsible if things happen? What kind of things could make you culpable?...

The short answer is that you could have liability. Whether you would be held liable will depend on the exact circumstances.

1. So, as Sam outlined, if you had reasonable cause to believe that the person you loaned the gun to was a prohibited person or was likely to use the gun to commit a crime or unlawfully hurt someone, you would be held liable. The important point here is that you don't get to decide if you knew or should have known the guy you loaned the gun to was going to do something wrong with it. That might, if you're unlucky, be a question that will be decided by a jury.
   
   
2. Also, in general, everyone has a legal duty to exercise due care to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to others. If one is found not to have done so and thus caused damage to another, he could be required to compensate the injured person for that damage.
   
   
3. A gun is a potentially dangerous instrumentality. If a jury could conclude that under the circumstances someone failed to exercise due care regarding loaning his gun, and the person to whom the gun was loaned hurts someone with it, a jury might decide that the gun owner failed to exercise appropriate care and may be held financially liable. So, for example, if you were to loan a gun to someone who you knew or should have known had no experience with guns or had a history of handling them unsafely, you could be held liable for any damage he caused. And again, that would be something that would be up to a jury.
   
   
4. Although this case in Montana was about gun storage, the language of the appellate court decision gives us some clues as to how a court might look at the question of the standard of care where guns are concerned, Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995), at 174 -- 175 (emphasis added):

   ...A firearm, particularly one that is loaded or has ammunition in close proximity, is considered a dangerous instrumentality and therefore requires a higher degree of care in its use or handling. This concept is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:
   
   Care required. The care required is always reasonable care. This standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act, and is proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised.
   
   As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....
   
   Restatement (Second) of Torts § 298 cmt. b (1965).
   
   Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201, MCA, our decisions in Limberhand, Maguire, Phillips, Mang and Busta and the above referred to standards of care set forth in Prosser and Keeton on Torts and in comment b to § 298 of the Restatement, we hold that, as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner taking into consideration the type of firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether the ammunition is in close proximity or easily attainable, and the location and circumstances of its use and storage.
   
   Because we conclude that Susanj owed a legal duty to the general public to store his firearm and ammunition in a manner consistent with this standard of care,...

   Where in this storage case the court found a duty to store a gun and ammunition in a manner consistent with a very high standard of care, it's likely that in a case involving the loan of a gun a court would find a duty to also exercise a very high standard of care.
   
   
5. And if the gun owner's conduct was so careless as to be considered reckless, he could also face criminal charges.
   
   
6. These sorts of results are highly circumstance dependent. Whether there can be liability will be a matter of exactly what happened and how.
   
   
7. But this is a well recognized class of tort liability that could arise in connection with the loan of anything that is potentially dangerous -- a gun, a car, a boat, etc. It's usually referred to as "negligent entrustment."

 

[north east redneck]

I have never and will never loan any gun I own to anyone, and that includes trusted friends and family members. Too many potential problems.

 

[Saw-Bones]

^^^^ That and if my firearm(s) are in someone else’s possession I don’t know how they have been treated… either by ignorance, disrespect or malice.

Kills two birds with one stone.

 

[esq_stu]

Negligent entrustment is a common law tort in Michigan - no reason it would not apply to firearms:

Liability for negligent entrustment arises when “the owner permits an incompetent or inexperienced person to use his chattel [personal property] with knowledge that such use is likely to cause injuries to others.” Haring v. Myrick, 368 Mich. 420, 423, 118 N.W.2d 260, 261 (1962).

 

[BearBrimstone]

The way that I see it is if you loan a gun to someone and they use it to break the law the absolute best case scenario for you is that you just lose the gun. The worst case scenario would get very bad though.

 

[joem1945]

The estate of the Sandy Hook shooter was sued for a bunch of money and the plantiffs won. I'll never loan a firearm to anyone. At the range I may let a fellow shooter shoot a few rounds but that's it.

 

[Speedo66]

Supervised at the range is one thing, but no one is walking away from my control with one of my guns, my son excluded.

Seen way too many frivolous lawsuits for that to happen. "You knew one in 50 million rounds could be a squib load yet you, with wanton recklessness, allowed this poor victim to shoot one your factory bullets, resulting in a nick on his finger, completely disfiguring him for life! Jurors, I think 10 million dollars to compensate this wrecked man who is unable to sleep, work, or enjoy marital relations with his wife would be fair."

No thanks, not going to happen.