Estate of Heck Ex Rel. Heck v. Stoffer
786 N.E.2d 265, 2003 WL 1795690, 2003 Ind. LEXIS 293 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A gun owner owes a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in the storage and safekeeping of their handgun to protect third parties from foreseeable harm. This duty exists even when the harm is caused by a third party's criminal act of stealing and using the firearm, especially if the owner knows a dangerous individual has unrestricted access to the premises where the gun is kept.
Facts:
- Timothy Stoffer, an adult with a long criminal history including resisting law enforcement and theft from his own family, was a fugitive from justice.
- His parents, Raymond and Patricia Stoffer, were aware of his criminal history, drug addiction, and fugitive status.
- The Stoffers assisted Timothy in avoiding arrest by allowing him to hide at their lake cottage and warning him of a police tracking device on his vehicle.
- Timothy retained keys to his parents' home, giving him unrestricted access.
- The Stoffers kept a loaded handgun in their home, sometimes stored between the cushions of an armchair.
- Timothy took the handgun from his parents' home.
- While fleeing apprehension, Timothy used the stolen handgun to shoot and kill Police Officer Eryk Heck.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Officer Heck filed a negligence lawsuit against Raymond and Patricia Stoffer and Stoffer Construction in an Indiana trial court.
- The Stoffers filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the Stoffers' motion, dismissing the complaint and alternatively granting summary judgment in their favor.
- Heck's Estate (appellant) appealed the decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding the Stoffers (appellees) had no duty to safely store their handgun.
- Heck's Estate petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for transfer, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a gun owner owe a common law duty of reasonable care to safely store a handgun to prevent it from being taken and used by a third party to injure another, when the owner knows a dangerous and unstable individual has unrestricted access to the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, Chief Justice
Yes. A gun owner has a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in the storage and safekeeping of their handgun. The court determined this duty exists by balancing three factors: the relationship between the parties, the foreseeability of harm, and public policy concerns. While the relationship between the Stoffers and Officer Heck was tenuous, the foreseeability of harm was very high given the Stoffers' knowledge of their son's extensive criminal history, fugitive status, and history of resisting law enforcement, combined with his unfettered access to their home. Public policy also favors imposing a duty, as the burden of safely storing a firearm is slight compared to the significant public interest in preventing gun violence and preserving human life. The court also rejected the argument that Timothy's criminal act was an unforeseeable intervening cause, holding that such an act is the very harm that the duty to safely store a firearm is meant to prevent.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in Indiana by recognizing a common law duty for gun owners to exercise reasonable care in storing their firearms to prevent theft and subsequent misuse by third parties. It moves beyond traditional negligent entrustment theories, which require the owner to directly supply the instrumentality to the tortfeasor. By applying the standard Webb v. Jarvis duty factors, the court clarified that gun ownership comes with responsibilities to the public, and the constitutional right to bear arms does not shield an owner from ordinary negligence claims. This case will likely influence future litigation involving third-party criminal acts, emphasizing foreseeability and the owner's knowledge of specific risks as key determinants of liability.
