TexasCHLforum.com

TomsTXCHL wrote:

gljjt wrote:I also agree with Jim Beaux, Charlie did nothing irresponsible. He acted reasonably for a non firearms savvy person.

Where did I say he did something irresponsible. I merely suggested he couldn't have foreseen how utterly idiotic his host was/became.

I didn't mean to imply you said he was irresponsible. My apologies that it came across that way. Sorry!!

Thanks,

gljjt

The lawyer time I mentioned helps Charlie to know how to protect his future if there is any possibility that there may be long term physical issues. This is potentially more than just immediate out of pocket expense, possible future issues as I mentioned, missed wages, etc. I'm not sue happy, but I think a little up front expert advice is a good thing. The "friend's" insurance company is not Charlie's advocate / friend / on his side. They work for their shareholders. My experience (2x) for similar (injury not gunshot though) is the insurance companies are difficult until it looks like it will go to litigation. I haven't sued, but it took a long time and threat of litigation to get them to do the right thing. I may be biased and that may not be the norm, but it my experience. I would pay up front a couple of hundred for advice.

If no personal injury is involved in an incident, property damage only, I'd probably wouldn't get the paid advice. Moderate to serious personal injury, yes! Is a risk/reward decision, different for each of us.

I agree I wouldn't want to give 33-40% up for a lawsuit, yet. What I would do is pay for an hour of lawyer time to cover what I am entitled to in order to ensure I have the knowledge to make informed decisions. Sorry if that wasn't clear. A couple of hundred spent to know what my rights are and to not lose them due to administrative stuff (timelines, etc.) because I don't know the law, is money well spent in my opinion.

I also agree with Jim Beaux, Charlie did nothing irresponsible. He acted reasonably for a non firearms savvy person.

Also, hopes and prayers for a complete and speedy recovery.

From my understanding of the story, Charlie certainly was not knowledgeable about what he should have done, check the gun to ensure it was unloaded or to unload it. But he was not negligent in my opinion. His actions were reasonable for a person not familiar with firearms.

The friend however is a moron. He should know better and is 100% responsible for this. He was negligent. IANAL, but I believe Charlie is clearly entitled to all actual damages, hospital/physician bills, etc., and likely more for pain and suffering and for possible future medical issues. I would contact my insurance companies (health and homeowners) as an FYI (would not file a claim, but get their help to file against the gun owner) and would insist, via attorney if necessary , for his insurance information.

This guy sounds like he may be a problem to deal with. I would spend a couple hundred or so for an initial 'talk' with an attorney to ensure I was properly and fairly taken care of and map out the next steps.