The notion of responsibility cuts both ways. That is why Illinois uses a modified form of comparative negligence in tort claims. If the woman who killed herself is found by the jury to be more than 50% responsible...she loses. If she is found 40% responsible, her estate collects 60% of the total damages awarded.
Suicidal IL Woman Buys Ammunition Without FOID Card--Husband Sues
- Thread starter FCFC
- Start date
- Status
The notion of responsibility cuts both ways. That is why Illinois uses a modified form of comparative negligence in tort claims. If the woman who killed herself is found by the jury to be more than 50% responsible...she loses. If she is found 40% responsible, her estate collects 60% of the total damages awarded.
Neo-Luddite
Member
I hate the FOID nonsense as much as the next guy--but the clerk didn't follow the law---and it seems may not have KNOWN the law owing to lack of training.
Hopefully this matter will be settled calmly and quitely and the family allowed to heal.
As said I dislike the FOID, but I make a special point to be proactive and to hand mine over for inspection when buying ammo---especially when a young and possibly inexperienced person is checking me out.
But even in the gun shop I am a 'regular' at, I produce my FOID when buying ammo--despite the fact that they know me on sight and have a copy of my FOID and FFL-3 on file.
The law is the law and until it is changed can trip people up.
Hopefully this matter will be settled calmly and quitely and the family allowed to heal.
As said I dislike the FOID, but I make a special point to be proactive and to hand mine over for inspection when buying ammo---especially when a young and possibly inexperienced person is checking me out.
But even in the gun shop I am a 'regular' at, I produce my FOID when buying ammo--despite the fact that they know me on sight and have a copy of my FOID and FFL-3 on file.
The law is the law and until it is changed can trip people up.
I know the city of Peoria pretty well.
There are no gun shops left there anymore and there are only four places you can buy firearms or ammunition there, Gander Mountain, Dicks, Dunhams, and Wal-Mart.
You can rarely get anybody to wait on you at the Dicks and the Dunhams.
You aren't getting ammo at the Gander unless you have a Gun Card, that leaves Wal-Mart and an inexperienced and most likely manipulated clerk to handle the transaction.
Most Wal=Marts in this state have already eliminated gun sales, looks like ammo is the next thing to go.
My question is where did she get the gun???????
There are no gun shops left there anymore and there are only four places you can buy firearms or ammunition there, Gander Mountain, Dicks, Dunhams, and Wal-Mart.
You can rarely get anybody to wait on you at the Dicks and the Dunhams.
You aren't getting ammo at the Gander unless you have a Gun Card, that leaves Wal-Mart and an inexperienced and most likely manipulated clerk to handle the transaction.
Most Wal=Marts in this state have already eliminated gun sales, looks like ammo is the next thing to go.
My question is where did she get the gun???????
myrockfight
Member
Since the lawsuit was dropped, it seems it would be prudent to think of why.
The most significant reason I can think of is that he was as responsible, or more so than Walmart in his wife's suicide. If she was mentally unstable, why would he let her have access to the gun?
He sounds more like an opportunist with a really, really, bad lawyer. Call 1-800-BAD-SUIT!
It is sad though. I hope he was just blinded by emotion rather than greed. You never know though.
The most significant reason I can think of is that he was as responsible, or more so than Walmart in his wife's suicide. If she was mentally unstable, why would he let her have access to the gun?
He sounds more like an opportunist with a really, really, bad lawyer. Call 1-800-BAD-SUIT!
It is sad though. I hope he was just blinded by emotion rather than greed. You never know though.
Yes, the criminal charges against the clerk were dropped. Criminal charges get dropped for all kinds of reasons. However, lack of prosecution by the state for a crime doesn't absolve the wrong-doer of liability in a negligence per se action. The plaintiff could still prove that the criminal law was violated as part of their case.
I have read plenty of research on juries. That research supports the notion that the typical American juror is hardest on two types of litigants in our system. 1) Criminal defendants and 2) Civil plaintiffs. In each case, the jurors think the litigant is "trying to get away with something." The criminal defendant is trying to get away with their crime. The civil plaintiff is trying to get something for nothing.
Of course...this makes it very difficult for defendants who actually are innocent and for plaintiffs who actually have a real case.
Many in this thread seem willing to automatically assume that the husband is just greedy. That the husband was a fool who didn't lock up his guns. We don't know that. Maybe his wife lifted the keys to his safe?
Why is no one addressing the greed and inattention to detail demonstrated by Walmart? The company obviously enjoys the fiscal benefits of selling ammunition in Illinois...as such...they ought to comply with the law. Consequently their staff should be trained properly. They weren't. They sold ammo, in violation of the law, directly to the kind of person the FOID law is intended to protect (i.e. children and the mentally ill).
SCKimberFan
Member
Quote
"Why is no one addressing the greed and inattention to detail demonstrated by Walmart?"
I don't think greed played a part in this as much as the clerk's stupity or the manager's stupity for allowing her to wait on customer she should not have been taking care of. The inattention to detail has been discussed - many of the posts spoke to that.
"Why is no one addressing the greed and inattention to detail demonstrated by Walmart?"
I don't think greed played a part in this as much as the clerk's stupity or the manager's stupity for allowing her to wait on customer she should not have been taking care of. The inattention to detail has been discussed - many of the posts spoke to that.
scythefwd
Member
Guys,
Having lived in IL for about 18 years, the FOID is nothing more than an inconvience and a way to see what guns you have. You will not be turned down for a FOID for any reason except that you have lost your rights to own a gun under federal law (I believe that a bad mental eval or felony is about it). I had my FOID as early as 8 years old, which means I couldn't buy ammo or guns yet but they still gave me one. I don't agree with the government being able to know you have guns, but it doesn't restrict you from getting a gun. It just requires that you have passed a background check before you buy (and IL doesn't accept an instant background check as far as I know). To those that said she could drive an hour to a neighboring state and get ammo, you have never been to Peoria. I grew up there. It is 2 hours from the nearest border. I do think he is culpable for not putting up the firearm so she had no access to it (which she obviously did). I also think that Wally world is to blame. The law is very clear, it flashes on the screen when you check out, and ignorance of the law doesn't absolve you from it. What Wallyworld's clerk did was ILLEGAL. There is no other way to say it truthfully.
Having lived in IL for about 18 years, the FOID is nothing more than an inconvience and a way to see what guns you have. You will not be turned down for a FOID for any reason except that you have lost your rights to own a gun under federal law (I believe that a bad mental eval or felony is about it). I had my FOID as early as 8 years old, which means I couldn't buy ammo or guns yet but they still gave me one. I don't agree with the government being able to know you have guns, but it doesn't restrict you from getting a gun. It just requires that you have passed a background check before you buy (and IL doesn't accept an instant background check as far as I know). To those that said she could drive an hour to a neighboring state and get ammo, you have never been to Peoria. I grew up there. It is 2 hours from the nearest border. I do think he is culpable for not putting up the firearm so she had no access to it (which she obviously did). I also think that Wally world is to blame. The law is very clear, it flashes on the screen when you check out, and ignorance of the law doesn't absolve you from it. What Wallyworld's clerk did was ILLEGAL. There is no other way to say it truthfully.
You know it sounds a lot like IL FOID requirements are interfering with interstate commerce of a right that is an individualy protected right.
Congress should do something about it.
The government is so quick to stretch interstate commerce against us in matters that do not even pertain to interstate commerce, why not use it for our benefit when it is valid?
The woman made an adult decision to do something tragic. Nobody is to blame except her if that was the case.
I am surprised they did not already have ammo, what idiot keeps firearms and no ammo? That sounds fishy.
Did the guy send her in to buy ammo just to kill her later and make it appear she did everything herself?
So a woman drove a deadly several thousand pound chunk of metal to the store to purchase ammo, to then safely drove back home and loaded a gun with the intent to kill herself and people are complaining?
I say bravo. During that entire trip she could have killed herself and taken any number of people with her, yet she chose not to infringe on the rights of anyone else.
Whether the gun was locked up or not makes little difference. How many couples exist where one could not get into something of the others? In fact they mutaly own the property, so she can legaly break into it if she can't unlock it. There is no law against breaking your own property.
Locks work for children, they are not meant to stop adults with tools and enough time.
The firearm is no more to blame than a piece of rope would be to blame if she used one instead.
I think nobody is to blame but her as reported. She was an adult that made an adult decision. A decision that could have involved any number of inanimate objects.
If only they had kept the ammo from her! Then she might have chosen to drive into and smash head on into a supporter of the nanny state to kill herself instead. Maybe right into you or a family member after being denied her ammo purchase. After all driving 100mph and crossing into oncoming traffic would probably be rather effective, and most Americans own vehicles and are perfectly capable of it.
Perhaps her getting ammo actualy saved someone like you?
The FOID is illegal IMHO under the 2nd. It requires a person to pay a tax (the fee) to excercise an individual right, a right recently held as an individual right by the SCOTUS. It expires, and must be renewed to not suddenly be breaking the law.
I guess a tax on free speech and a poll tax when you vote should also be in place?
Your logic is what incrementaly expands the mindset and restrictions of a nanny state. You eventualy end up like jolly ol England if you defend such actions and logic. An adult chose to take thier own life and did so in a way that did not infringe on the rights of any other citizen. In my opinion that is thier choice to make as a free individual.
Congress should do something about it.
The government is so quick to stretch interstate commerce against us in matters that do not even pertain to interstate commerce, why not use it for our benefit when it is valid?
The woman made an adult decision to do something tragic. Nobody is to blame except her if that was the case.
I am surprised they did not already have ammo, what idiot keeps firearms and no ammo? That sounds fishy.
Did the guy send her in to buy ammo just to kill her later and make it appear she did everything herself?
So a woman drove a deadly several thousand pound chunk of metal to the store to purchase ammo, to then safely drove back home and loaded a gun with the intent to kill herself and people are complaining?
I say bravo. During that entire trip she could have killed herself and taken any number of people with her, yet she chose not to infringe on the rights of anyone else.
Whether the gun was locked up or not makes little difference. How many couples exist where one could not get into something of the others? In fact they mutaly own the property, so she can legaly break into it if she can't unlock it. There is no law against breaking your own property.
Locks work for children, they are not meant to stop adults with tools and enough time.
The firearm is no more to blame than a piece of rope would be to blame if she used one instead.
See that is the difference between nanny states and thier citizens. They don't believe in treating adults like adults, but rather like older children who slowly earn privelidges.
I think nobody is to blame but her as reported. She was an adult that made an adult decision. A decision that could have involved any number of inanimate objects.
If only they had kept the ammo from her! Then she might have chosen to drive into and smash head on into a supporter of the nanny state to kill herself instead. Maybe right into you or a family member after being denied her ammo purchase. After all driving 100mph and crossing into oncoming traffic would probably be rather effective, and most Americans own vehicles and are perfectly capable of it.
Perhaps her getting ammo actualy saved someone like you?
The FOID is illegal IMHO under the 2nd. It requires a person to pay a tax (the fee) to excercise an individual right, a right recently held as an individual right by the SCOTUS. It expires, and must be renewed to not suddenly be breaking the law.
I guess a tax on free speech and a poll tax when you vote should also be in place?
Your logic is what incrementaly expands the mindset and restrictions of a nanny state. You eventualy end up like jolly ol England if you defend such actions and logic. An adult chose to take thier own life and did so in a way that did not infringe on the rights of any other citizen. In my opinion that is thier choice to make as a free individual.
I hope we get over calling the young clerk "stupid". If she wasn't trained, how can you possibly think she should what to do?
On this Forum we are smarter than placing blame on the untrained clerk, who probably can't sleep at night thinking she did something wrong and played a role in the death of another lady.
On this Forum we are smarter than placing blame on the untrained clerk, who probably can't sleep at night thinking she did something wrong and played a role in the death of another lady.
Over at our local walmart, they don't have anyone to run sporting goods, we are lucky if they keep the ammo shelf stocked, I cleared their blazer .45 out, and a month later, they were still out, I had to drive to another town.
In order to get ammo there, I usually have to find someone in automotive or electronics. Usually even then I have to go behind the counter to show him/her what I want.
In order to get ammo there, I usually have to find someone in automotive or electronics. Usually even then I have to go behind the counter to show him/her what I want.
Lets hope wally world wins this one.I chalk this up to greed. Low wages attract low quality workers, but allow the company to increase profitability. Understaffing a store so workers have to help customers outside their departments leads to poor service, however that same understaffing enhances profitability. Skimping on procedural training saves time and money for the company.
....this is all chalked up to greed.
I fully comprehend and understand that this woman bought bullets, put them in a gun and killed herself. However, she is not the only one at fault here. The simple fact of the matter is that the state of Illinois had laws on the books regarding the sale of ammunition. Those laws were not followed. This amounts to negligence on the part of Walmart. You plays the game, you pays the fee. Whether or not the suicidal woman was more than 50% at fault is for a jury to decide.
I cannot get over how many people on this board buy into the false "conservative" meme that civil litigation brought by individuals is somehow a bad thing. If you value individual rights...especially CIVIL rights...then you have to take the good with the bad. Some cases will be bad, some cases will be good. Ultimately we should let juries decide this because we DO value individuals and we DO want our day in court.
K3
Member
Had this happened in Texas where there is no FOID, would you still be singing the same tune?
I haven't seen a copy of the complaint that was filed by the plaintiff's attorney, however, based upon what the lawyer said in the article, I'm guessing that the complaint has at least one count based on negligence per se.
If the law were different (as it apparently is in TX) then you wouldn't be able to bring a negligence per se claim. So I wouldn't be singing the same tune. But, as you Texans are so fond of pointing out...the rest of the world (including Illinois) is not Texas.
K3
Member
Indeed.
I could have said New Mexico but chose Texas because I live there. I am looking at this from a more pragmatic perspective rather than nitpicky legal BS.
My question to you, BS Illinois laws aside, is this: Is anybody but the deceased responsible for her death?
The husband shouldn't be suing.
The clerk shouldn't bear any responsibility.
Wal-Mart, and I hate to say this, shouldn't either.
Its ok, I stopped buying ammo from walmart as of my last bad experience where they made me feel like I was a criminal and not allowing my to touch the box or inspect the ammo before I bought it. Gander Mtn has it right on the shelf, as do many other stores, and even if they do have it locked up or behind the counter, any decent place will allow you to inspect something like ammo, an item that is NON-RETURNABLE! 
ZeSpectre
Member
More like a Peoria man wants some money.
I'm sure that every local gun shop agrees with you...and would like to see the same. Some big box operations get it right (i.e. Gander, and Bass Pro), but Walmart does not. They carry the merchandise because it suits their bottom line, not because they are committed to the holy grail of the 2A.
I don't want a business serving me because of their good will.
I want a business to serve me because it is in their best interest.
It's foolish to expect a business to remain so if they do not act in their own best interest.
The more we make it not in a business' best interest to offer firearms and ammunition, the more they will cease to serve us.
Please beat up on Wal-Mart more.
I love how the rich want to close Wal-Mart down to help the "little guy" so the poor can pay higher prices elsewhere.
There! Don't you feel so much better now, making the poor worse off?
I honestly can't answer that question because I don't have all the facts. The woman committed the act and bears responsibility. I would argue she doesn't bear it all. Our system recognizes that some people lack the capacity to act rationally. (children, the insane, etc.)
We also don't know to what extent the husband went to secure his guns. Maybe he had them stacked on a table in the kitchen with post-its that said. "Insert Ammo here." "Point this here." "Pull this here." Or maybe they were locked up in his safe and his wife lifted the keys or the combo.
If the guy has a legal claim (and he does) he should sue. Sleeping on your rights is never a good idea. Seeing as how the State dropped criminal charges, the clerk's responsibility will be limited to the extent she acted as an agent of Walmart.
Walmart is a corporation. Corporations are, for all intents and purposes, treated as people. Corporations act through their agents (the clerk). If the person known as Walmart, acting through one of its agents, broke the law and something bad happened as a result, then the person/corporation known as Walmart may be liable.
....this is no different than how you or I would and should be treated.
Yes. Yes. Every man for himself and all that. You act in your best interest, the giant legal person known as Walmart will act in their best interest, and somehow all of America is better for it.
If you have drawn the idea that I am "rich" because I am a) critical of Walmart's inability to follow the laws of Illinois and b) don't think they should be held to a different standard than that applied to regular people because they are a big business, you would be way off.
What is amazing to me, is how capably the "rich" have flipped America's love for the underdog and the little guy over on top of itself. Restricting this plaintiff's access to the courts to have his case heard cuts against your future access to justice, not Walmart's.
Everybody wants tort reform till they get torted. Everyone wants medical malpractice reform till their doctor botches the delivery of their baby.
....and we all want this why? Because we have been told ad infinitum that we really only hurt ourselves when we enforce our rights against the big companies that make America great. We have the old American ideal of "rugged individualism" turned into a weapon against us. Now the accountability part of the equation only applies to the little guy....anything else is just money-grubbing.
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.
- Status
