ILNews

COA: Mother not liable for death as gun buyer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in a negligence claim in favor of a woman whose husband killed her daughter with a gun she purchased for him, finding the designated evidence doesn't show proximate cause.

In Gary Lewis v. Estate of Alvis Wynn, et al., No. 10A01-0804-CV-157, Gary Lewis filed a negligence claim against his mother-in-law, Phyllis Wynn, following the death of his wife, Linda. Wynn's husband, Alvis, shot and killed Linda and himself with a gun Phyllis purchased for him. Gary claimed Phyllis procured the gun used in the shooting and "negligently stored, entrusted, monitored, or allowed" Alvis to get possession of it.

Phyllis and Alvis were married, divorced, and remarried to each other over the course of nearly five decades. Throughout that time, Phyllis claimed Alvis was abusive, manipulative, and had a temper. Linda had claimed when she was a teenager in 1980 that Alvis had raped her, which led to the divorce. Phyllis and Alvis remarried a few years later, and then again filed for divorce in 2004.

Phyllis lived next door to Alvis during their separation and had changed the locks to her home. She allowed him to come in when she wasn't home to take his possessions, and she contended that's when he took all the guns from her home, including the one used in the shooting.

On appeal, Phyllis argued Alvis owned the guns and she couldn't be liable for negligently entrusting the guns because she didn't own them.

The Court of Appeals decided the designated evidence in this case doesn't show proximate cause because Linda's death wasn't foreseeable at the time Phyllis bought the gun. The designated evidence doesn't indicate when she bought the gun and the record is devoid of evidence she was aware of the threat of violence toward others when she bought it. Her own testimony suggests she bought the guns before they were separated, but doesn't say which separation.

"One who purchases a gun is not forever liable for all acts involving the gun, but only for those acts that are foreseeable at the time the gun is purchased," wrote Judge Melissa May.

The evidence also shows Phyllis wasn't negligent in storing or monitoring the guns because she had changed her locks and restricted Alvis' access to her home before the shooting.

Lewis also argued some accounts Phyllis contributed money to that were either in Alvis' name or joint accounts that weren't considered part of his estate should be used to satisfy any judgment against Alvis in his Wrongful Death Claim. The Court of Appeals held the trial court didn't err in holding Phyllis' contributions to the disputed accounts aren't subject to claims on Alvis' estate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT