Firearm Owner Liability for Suicide

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bearcreek

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
3,946
Location
N Idaho
A buddy of mine is a psychology professor in Colorado and recently posed a question to which I didn't 100% know the answer. If person A loans a firearm to person B and person B commits suicide with it, assuming the loan was legal, can person A be held liable in any way? Specifically asking about Colorado and links to descriptions of relevant cases would be appreciated, if they exist. There's a fair number of cases where folks rented guns at ranges and committed suicide with them but I haven't heard of a range being held liable for that. I'm assuming it'd work the same way with a loan but I wasn't sure.
 
I just did a search of Findlaw and Nolo to see if there were any such cases in CO. I could not find anything about actual prosecutions. I did find info that led me to this linked webpage which provided CO range owners and gun retailers with tips for preventing such suicides.

My range in PA had such an incident about four years ago. A man rented a gun and killed himself once inside the shooting range lane. The range was not charged with any crime or negligence After an extensive investigation by law enforcement.

As I see it there would have to be some sort of negligence or other complicity by the range to prevail in a lawsuit Blaming a range or retailer as complicit in a suicide. It not then it would be possible to sue a car rental agency for renting a car to a person who then drives it off a cliff to commit suicide. However anyone who relies on my opinion in a legal matter is probably mentally unstable enough to be in danger of secluded destructive behavior.
 
I think that @1942bull has the right principles laid out, but I'll add a few things. Whether one who loans or rents a pistol to someone can be held liable if that someone commits suicide with the loaned pistol is going to be a matter of state law. I know of zero federal laws that would apply here. With that said, there are going to be two determinations: (1) criminal liability; and (2) civil liability. In both cases, I think a lot will hinge on what the loaning party knew about the borrowing person at the time of the loan. If someone were to come to me asking to borrow a pistol, and I knew: (a) that he was going through a divorce; (b) had talked about suicide; and (c) was drunk at the time he asked me, the answer would no. On those facts, a jury could easily find that I was negligent in my entrustment of a firearm to that person. Let's also bear in mind that a range that rents guns will also usually have a renter sign a waiver of liability. There's a reason for that.
 
I would be curious if a person didn't own a bridge, building or cliff and jumped off, could the owners be held liable if they allowed the person access?
 
Having helped a friend pick out the gun he later ended his life with, and sold a gun (at a shop, not personally) to a gal who supposedly committed suicide with it, I will tell you fear of prosecution isn't going to be the highest worry on your list. You will be wracked with guilt.

My first girlfriend once (for attention) said to me over the phone, "I think I'll just kill myself". I said " I'll run a gun over..." Now if I had, and she had, then I'd have been worried about prosecution, but again the emotion of guilt would have taken a far worse toll than the legal system could have. (and it did in the first two cases I mentioned, particularly my friend.)

For those who are curious, my friend chose to end his life with his .45 LC Colt Ananconda, (Which is why I will never own one) using one of my handloads, and the girl was shot with her Taurus 85. I'm not 100% convinced hers was a suicide, but that's what it was ruled.
 
Handled more than my share of suicides as a cop -both attempted and succeeded. That doesn't make me any kind of authority on the legal culpability side (either criminal or civil...). What Spats has said about "negligent entrustment" pretty much covers the ground though. If someone you know just got out of the hospital after an unsuccessful suicide attempt that was common knowledge and you loan them one of your firearms - you might just need an entire law firm on your side if an action results (either criminal or civil...). Without any knowledge that a person even might be suicidal or intent on killing people and I can't see how you could have an action succeed against you...

That being said, in real life, you can be sued by anyone for anything... The criminal side of that situation is that if one or two are willing to lie (or fabricate evidence, something not unknown to any working cop...) then you might actually end up with a criminal charge while being completely innocent... What I've been talking around is the very real difficulty an individual might face - even if an allegation is entirely without merit... since you'd still need to hire counsel and go through the legal process to resolve a bogus complaint... Not one bit of that is something anyone should have to go through - it's to be avoided at all costs...

I was on the receiving end of a real life bogus allegation that lead to several full court hearings before my actions (the one time in 22 years as a cop that I fired a weapon - and only fired a single shot...) were ruled to be justified. Thank heavens my Department and my City stood by me and did all that was necessary in the way of legal representation. If I'd been on my own as an ordinary citizen it would have absolutely bankrupted me... and I'm not sure that the other side might not have succeeded...

The firearms we own carry a responsibility that never goes away -whether you carry one or not. Any negligent acts on your part might have severe consequences...

I'll get down off of my soapbox now...
 
Borsalino said:
If the loan or whatever is legal and the person who went and borrowed the gun is of age then i don't see any reason why the Original owner or the gun range has to be help responsible in any manner or way. Guns are not for violence but for protection anyone determined to hurt himself with/without a gun will do as he/she wish.
Click to expand...
And yet ..... that's not how the law works.
 
Borsalino said:
If the loan or whatever is legal and the person who went and borrowed the gun is of age then i don't see any reason why the Original owner or the gun range has to be help responsible in any manner or way....
Click to expand...

How you might see things is irrelevant. What will matter, especially in connection with a question of civil liability will be how a judge/jury sees things. Civil liability if someone if you imprudently give or loan a gun to someone or someone gets your allegedly improperly will generally be based on negligence.Negligence in law is basically:
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
Click to expand...
Negligence is generally a question for a jury. Basically the jury will need to decide, after all the evidence about what took place and what everyone said or did is presented whether the defendant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would in the same situation.

See also what Spats McGee said:
Spats McGee said:
...I think a lot will hinge on what the loaning party knew about the borrowing person at the time of the loan. If someone were to come to me asking to borrow a pistol, and I knew: (a) that he was going through a divorce; (b) had talked about suicide; and (c) was drunk at the time he asked me, the answer would no. On those facts, a jury could easily find that I was negligent in my entrustment of a firearm to that person....
Click to expand...

While this case from gun-friendly Montana, focuses on a question of negligent storage, provides some insight into the standard of care applicable to firearms 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,...
Click to expand...
 
In the context of Colorado, the question of "loan" arises. Since all transfers in the state require an FFL, a "loan" to "a friend" raises a question as to whether there was, under CO law, an illegal transfer. If so, an illegal transfer would likely be a confounding factor in any prosecutorial evaluation. So, your friend would probably be best to start looking at what constitutes "loan" vs transfer under CO law.
 
DocRock said:
In the context of Colorado, the question of "loan" arises. Since all transfers in the state require an FFL, a "loan" to "a friend" raises a question as to whether there was, under CO law, an illegal transfer. If so, an illegal transfer would likely be a confounding factor in any prosecutorial evaluation. So, your friend would probably be best to start looking at what constitutes "loan" vs transfer under CO law.
Click to expand...

Yes, a loan is a transfer of a firearm. It is a transfer of mere possession, not of legal title, with an expectation that the duration of the possession will be temporary and that the firearm will be returned.

Colorado law indeed requires that most private transfers of a firearm go through an FFL. That would include loans and gifts as well as private sales. The applicable Colorado statute is C.R.S. 18-12-112. Some loans are exempt from the background check requirement. Even if a particular loan is not exempt there is no reason why a loan could not be done legally by merely handling the actual transfer through an FFL with all the required formalities.

Under the applicable Colorado law an unlawful transfer (in addition to being a misdemeanor under 18-12-112(9)) could be a basis for transferee liability if the firearm is misused. See 18-12-112(5):
(5) A person who transfers a firearm in violation of the provisions of this section may be jointly and severally liable for any civil damages proximately caused by the transferee's subsequent use of the firearm.
Click to expand...

But even if the transfer itself is lawful, the transferee could still have civil liability if a jury decides that his transfer fell short of the required standard of care.
 
DocRock said:
So, your friend would probably be best to start looking at what constitutes "loan" vs transfer under CO law.
Click to expand...
This scenario is theoretical, and based on the premise that the loan was legal, as I stated in the OP.
bearcreek said:
If person A loans a firearm to person B and person B commits suicide with it, assuming the loan was legal, can person A be held liable in any way?
Click to expand...
 
I'll never loan out any rope or neckties

jmorris said:
I would be curious if a person didn't own a bridge, building or cliff and jumped off, could the owners be held liable if they allowed the person access?
Click to expand...

My first thought. Probably nowhere near as liable as pool owners who didn't have their property locked up to prevent an accidental drowning.
 
bearcreek said:
A buddy of mine is a psychology professor in Colorado and recently posed a question to which I didn't 100% know the answer. If person A loans a firearm to person B and person B commits suicide with it, assuming the loan was legal, can person A be held liable in any way? Specifically asking about Colorado and links to descriptions of relevant cases would be appreciated, if they exist. There's a fair number of cases where folks rented guns at ranges and committed suicide with them but I haven't heard of a range being held liable for that. I'm assuming it'd work the same way with a loan but I wasn't sure.
Click to expand...
Most (all?) ranges have a waiver they make patrons sign.

My old range in Cali had a rule that they would not rent to a person who came in alone without his or her own firearm. The rule was specifically to prevent suicides. Other ranges in the area all had the same rule.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Yes, a loan is a transfer of a firearm. It is a transfer of mere possession, not of legal title, with an expectation that the duration of the possession will be temporary and that the firearm will be returned.

Colorado law indeed requires that most private transfers of a firearm go through an FFL. That would include loans and gifts as well as private sales. The applicable Colorado statute is C.R.S. 18-12-112. Some loans are exempt from the background check requirement. Even if a particular loan is not exempt there is no reason why a loan could not be done legally by merely handling the actual transfer through an FFL with all the required formalities.

Under the applicable Colorado law an unlawful transfer (in addition to being a misdemeanor under 18-12-112(9)) could be a basis for transferee liability if the firearm is misused. See 18-12-112(5):
​
But even if the transfer itself is lawful, the transferee could still have civil liability if a jury decides that his transfer fell short of the required standard of care.
Click to expand...

In Colorado does the loan of a firearm by person A to person B require an FFL if person A is present during the entire time person B is in possession?
 
old lady new shooter said:
Most (all?) ranges have a waiver they make patrons sign.

My old range in Cali had a rule that they would not rent to a person who came in alone without his or her own firearm. The rule was specifically to prevent suicides. Other ranges in the area all had the same rule.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you think a loan would be different, since no waiver is involved?
 
CapnMac said:
Pools are considered an "attractive risk" (the exact language varies from State to State). The concept is that a fixed something that can attract attention while unsupervised requires additional action by the owners.
Which is a complicated thing, and beyond our scope here.
Click to expand...
In Cali the term is "attractive nuisance" and you have to fence your pool.
 
bearcreek said:
Are you saying that you think a loan would be different, since no waiver is involved?
Click to expand...

Everything else being equal I guess a loan without a signed waiver might be riskier for the lender than a loan with a signed waiver.

But a better question is, if the range makes the patron sign a waiver, but then fails to exercise proper supervision etc, would the waiver be disregarded in a legal proceeding.
 
It's possible that this paragraph,

(h) A TEMPORARY TRANSFER FOR NOT MORE THAN SEVENTY-TWO HOURS. A PERSON WHO TRANSFERS A FIREARM PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH (h) MAY BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE TRANSFEREE'S SUBSEQUENT UNLAWFUL USE OF THE FIREARM;

from the link I just posted, may be relevant to my question. I'd be interested to hear from Frank and Spats about that.
 
GEM said:
Just as info, Cornell University had a bridge that attracted suicide and was sued: https://www.ithacajournal.com/story...ell-student-suicide-lawsuit-settled/15442299/
Click to expand...

I don't know of anything that can prevent being sued and if litigation costs are considered lots of times the people are cheaper to pay off than the lawyers that can win the case, thus the "settlement".

Of course it just causes more of the same type of cases and an entire industry of class action suits where the only people that get any substantial payout are the lawyers.
 
old lady new shooter said:
My old range in Cali had a rule that they would not rent to a person who came in alone without his or her own firearm. The rule was specifically to prevent suicides.
Click to expand...

The oldest range in this area put in that policy after a couple of customers shot themselves.
The range also got bad publicity after it became known that a murderess had practiced there before shooting up her faculty meeting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
BATF speaks on loaning, storing and moving firearms
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
R
  • Locked
Suicides renews criticism of Guantanamo
Replies
5
Views
452
Standing Wolf
S
F
  • Locked
Another 'brilliant' NYT insight (suicide & guns)
Replies
12
Views
701
2nd Amendment
2
C
  • Locked
CDC MMWR: "Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths"
Replies
1
Views
493
jmbg29
J
2
  • Locked
Hawaii's new Castle law relating to civil liability
Replies
9
Views
1K
Prince Yamato
P
Back
Top