Mixing Guns and Alcohol Isn't Enough for Liability, Court Rules

[WhoWouldGuess]

Who would have ever thought that alcohol and firearms could be dangerous in combination?

http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=120279411 ... 0628163504

[C-dub]

That's interesting for a couple of reasons.

1. I agree that one person shouldn't be held liable for another adult's actions.

2. Courts have ruled that a bar or bartender or server can be and has been held responsible for another's actions if they drive drunk and get into an accident.

[twomillenium]

Hmmmmmm is this OP just providing a link to phish for folks to subscribe? This is old news several months old. If not then I apologize, I am always suspect to anything that requires personal information just to read what is already public record.

[WhoWouldGuess]

The article is dated yesterday, and I just saw it today.

I posted it because I find it interesting (or scary) that a court would find that a host allowing backyard target shooting while drinking is taking place isn't an unsafe act.

I have always felt that alcohol and gunpowder don't mix.

[WildBill]

The article is dated yesterday, and I just saw it today.

I posted it because I find it interesting (or scary) that a court would find that a host allowing backyard target shooting while drinking is taking place isn't an unsafe act.

I have always felt that alcohol and gunpowder don't mix.

Still can't open the link so I can't really make a comment about the decision since I can't read any details.

[twomillenium]

I agree, mixing firearms and alcohol is dangerous, but it the court ruled it was not enough for liability, I did not give out personal info so what I read did not link those actions to something that happened. Rest assured if something did happen (besides hurt feelings) the host could certainly be held to a degree of liability if the use of firearms was encouraged at the private event.

[puma guy]

The article is dated yesterday, and I just saw it today.

I posted it because I find it interesting (or scary) that a court would find that a host allowing backyard target shooting while drinking is taking place isn't an unsafe act.

I have always felt that alcohol and gunpowder don't mix.

Still can't open the link so I can't really make a comment about the decision since I can't read any details.

Yuup!

[RoyGBiv]

To continue reading, become a free ALM digital reader.

Um. No.

[RSX11]

It reminds me of the fictional tales of the Montrose Beer and Gun Club that are broadcast on KPFT (I only listen to the music shows...). The stories tell harrowing tales of alcohol mixed with weapons, with humorous results - not at all like real life.

[Lynyrd]

I'm a card carrying member of the ATF. I always thought they went together.

[oljames3]

Common sense is not the same thing as liability. IANAL, but I am trained as an insurance adjuster. Liability, at its most basic, results when one who owes a duty fails in that duty. That and it is whatever the court sez it is.

[WildBill]

Common sense is not the same thing as liability. IANAL, but I am trained as an insurance adjuster. Liability, at its most basic, results when one who owes a duty fails in that duty. That and it is whatever the court sez it is.

[1911 10MM]

Alcohol in excess and guns don't mix.

[WildBill]

This may be the case that the OP was referring to:

Guns and booze are a notoriously dangerous combination. Yet a Texas court of appeal has ruled
that homeowner can't be held liable for an accidental shooting just because a .45 caliber pistol was
left on a table where his guests were drinking alcohol.

After she was accidentally shot in the ankle during a backyard barbecue, Ruth Hernandez sued the
owner of the house where the event was being hosted. But Houston's Fourteenth Court of Appeals
concluded in a June 27 decision that the homeowner could not be sued for premises liability.

In his decision, Justice Busby affirmed the trial court's ruling dismissing Hernandez gross negligence
claim because she could not prove that Gonzalez-Flores had "actual, subjective awareness of an
extreme degree of risk." Busby also concluded the trial court was correct because Gonzalez-Flores
had his back to the shooting when it occurred.

http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=120279411 ... curindex=0

[oljames3]

In his decision, Justice Busby affirmed the trial court's ruling dismissing Hernandez gross negligence
claim because she could not prove that Gonzalez-Flores had "actual, subjective awareness of an
extreme degree of risk." ...

Basically, no duty owed so no duty could be failed.

I've spent my adult life working with small arms, crew served heavy weapons, high explosives, and nuclear weapons. Complacency kills the wrong people.