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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT