Quote:

the G-man said:
The problem with the strict liability theory with guns is that ignores the longstanding rule of "the intervening act."

Under that rule, the person liable is the one who committed the final, intervening, act that proximately causes the victim's death.

In the case at hand, the killer commits the intervening act.

This is a longstanding rule precisely because the law wants the actual perpetrator, the one who proximately caused the injury, to be the one responsible.

Using your strict liability rule on its own, one could just as easily claim that, for example, Ginsu knives fall into the strict liability catagory if someone gets stabbed.




What about injury to a third party? The state, for example winds up paying the costs of medical care for gunshot victims. Doesn't the theory of negligence enter into the issue?

Last edited by magicjay; 2005-07-29 4:13 AM.