Yeah, I think Charlie's acquaintance (no longer a "friend") has some 'splainin' to do.......gljjt wrote: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.
......in court........
........and, given the acquaintance's duplicitous reaction and attempt to avoid any and all liability, Charlie should really make him pay, and pay heavily. I'm talking punitive damages heavy enough that the gun reconsiders the wisdom of his continuing to own firearms, scissors, carving knives, and lawn darts.
I am not normally a person who thinks that the courts should be used to extort money out of people, but in this case it seems the proper application. How much work did Charlie miss? How much pain did he suffer? How much medical costs are involved? How long will his recovery last? How much permanent loss of future function to the leg did he sustain? Using the court to punish Charlie's acquaintance for his ghastly behavior AFTER the event as much as for his negligence which led up to it seems entirely appropriate.