I don't know how this could be crafted to be constitutional. There is a misconception that a person who accidentally, but non-negligently, shoots and injures or kills someone is going to be held liable in a civil action. The "reasonable person" standard applies to civil actions, including this scenario. If you were justified in using deadly force against someone and employed deadly force in a non-negligent manner, then you should be okay. It doesn't mean you won't get sued, but you should win.gigag04 wrote:Is there anyway they could limit someones ability to sue if an innocent is injured in a crossfire?
Ex - the Lubys thing. If she had a gun, and used it, killed the bg, but injured a guy in the process, is there a way she could not be held liable since she was acting "reasonably and prudent" and was not negligent?
Maybe?
-nick
There are several examples I always give in my pistol classes and seminars. Here is one. You 1) are justified in using deadly force; 2) draw and fire your handgun; 3) miss, or the bullet penetrates the bad guy, and an innocent bystander is hit. You acted as would a "reasonable prudent person under the same or similar circumstances" so you should not be found negligent, thus not liable.
Take the same scenario, but this time you swing your H&K MP5 on its lanyard out from under your coat and empty a 32 round mag. on full auto, spraying the entire area. Even thought the use of deadly force was justified, you acted in a negligent manner by "doing something a reasonable prudent person would not have done under the same or similar circumstances," thus you were negligent and liable to the innocent victim and/or their family.
Please note in the first example, this presumes the shot you took was reasonable under the circumstances. What is a reasonable shot may well vary by the skill of the shooter and the surroundings. What is reasonable for me may well be unreasonable for someone who hadn't shot their handgun since they renewed their CHL 3 1/2 years ago. If the attacker is "up close and personal," say 5 feet away, then the relative skill levels will not be an issue. Place the assailant 50 feet away with bystanders in the area and skill levels are more likely to be a factor in a jury's decision whether you acted reasonably.
We can muddy the water even more. Let's say the CHL hasn't practiced much and is on the way back to his table from the restroom at a restaurant. When he's and is 50 feet away, an assailant points a pistol at his wife's or child's head. Would the increased danger to a family member change the jury's decision whether your actions were reasonable? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Immunity for injury to or the death of the bad guy is easy. However, these hypothetical situations show why it would be very difficult to craft an immunity statute that would shield liability to an innocent bystander.
Regards,
Chas.