Frank Eisler kept an assortment of guns in his home, and in particular had “kept at least one gun in an unlocked drawer of his water bed — separate, but not far, from its clip.” Eisler’s stepson, 16-year-old Brian Montes, used one of the guns to commit suicide on April 11, 2005 and Brian’s father, Joseph Montes, sued Eisler for negligence in the death. [Maryland Daily Record]
14 Comments
Note, this is “guns are inherently evil” again. If he’d used a kitchen knife or razor blade to cut his wrists, this would probably never have gotten to court.
Somehow I’m guessing it was an acrimonious divorce.
I see the biological parent more responsible than the step-parent for this.
Ridicules verdict. If someone commits suicide, only the suicidal person is to blame. This is just a money grab.
Legally, I don’t know if this is right. Morally, the guy knew the kid was a smidge off his rocker, and getting a quick acting gun safe is a small thing to secure a home defense weapon. Us gun owners are responsible to taking reasonable precautions to prevent our firearms from getting into the wrong hands.
I don’t see the problem here. There’s definitely a duty to secure guns in a home with children and the size of the award is very proportionate to his personal negligence in the death. Full negligence in the wrongful death of a minor would yield an award several orders of magnitude larger.
But, why is there an assumed a duty to just secure guns and not kitchen knives, razor blades, bleach, etc.
Because kitchen knives, razor blades, etc. have common utilitarian uses that they are originall designed and created for, and small caliber hand guns are designed and created for killing people.
Actually the vast vast majority of small caliber handguns never kill anybody. I have two, and enjoy taking them to the range. When my parents had some desert property, we used to terrorize tin cans.
The syllogistic implications of poster Zoloft’s contribution are striking. Since many might playing it out, it could follow that all things with common utilitarian uses which are used for unintended purposes should be (regulated? banned? uninvented? objects of tort suits?) So much for innovation.
Maryland is a contributory negligence state – that means that there was no negligence assigned to Montes. Given the small award this makes no sense. That said, the apology the father says he is looking for is not part of the verdict/judgment…Homeowner’s insurance is probably paying any judgment and defense costs.
I don’t understand how the father had standing to sue in this matter. Once someone dies, the court-appointed Administrator of the decenent’s estate (I assume the 16 year old kid did not have a will) is the only person who has standing to sue. There are 2 causes of action available. (1) The cause of action for the kid himself which belongs to the kid’s estate; and (2) wrongful death (A creature of statute cause of action which compensates dependents for the pecuniary loss as a result of decedent’s death).
Lets assume that it was negligent for the father to leave a handgun and a loaded clip nearby with a mentally disturbed person in the house. There should have been no recovery in any event.
If the death were instantaneous or the decedent never regained consciousness, there could be no pain and suffering award. I assume that the 16 year old’s loss of earnings would be negligible, and I cannot see any other way that he could recover financially for the estate’s claim. But even if the estate did recover, the money would be split 50-50 between the mother and the father.
Recovery for wrongful death would not happen since this 16 year old had no dependents or immediate family members that relied on him for support.
The father’s direct cause fo action for negligent infliction of emotional distress woudl not fly. To establish such a cause fo action the father must prove: (1) that defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty toward him (not the case here), or (2) that plaintiff suffered a physical impact, (not the case here) or (3) that plaintiff was in a ‘zone of danger’ and at risk of an immediate physical injury (not the case here), or (4) that plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortuous
injury to a close relative (not the case here).”
BAsed on the information available, if the defendant plays his cards right on appeal, he should win.
VMS,
Wrongful death actions do not accrue to the administrator of the estate in every state. Many states allow any of statutory wrongful death beneficiaries to sue.
Commentor
To commentator @13
One learns something new every day! Maryland’s wrongful death statute (Section 3-904 of Courts and Judicial Proceedings) allows a direct suit by a parent with the proceeds divided between the statutory beneficiaries, and emotional damages may be awarded.
(d) Damages — Death of spouse, minor child or parent, unmarried children who are not minors. — The damages awarded under subsection (c) of this section are not limited or restricted by the “pecuniary loss” or “pecuniary benefit” rule but may include damages for mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, marital care, parental care, filial care, attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, or education where applicable for the death of:
(1) A spouse;
(2) A minor child;
(3) A parent of a minor child; or
(4) An unmarried child who is not a minor child if:
(i) The child is 21 years old or younger; or
(ii) A parent contributed 50 percent or more of the child’s support within the 12-month period immediately before the date of death of the child.