Two friends (A & B) ask another (C) if they can crash at his home. One of the two (A) ignores every single gun safety rule and kills his friend (B) with a rifle hanging on the wall. Now the family of the killed are suing everyone in the (C) family. From the Rutland Herald:

The complaint, which was filed on Oct. 31 by David Cleary, of the Rutland law firm, Cleary, Shahi and Aicher, was brought forward by Charbonneau’s parents, Richard and Betty Charbonneau. Cleary said Jeffrey Charbonneau’s death was a result of a firearm which had been in an “unsecured and unsafe posture” in the Goodwins’ home.

“At that time and place, the defendants and each of them had the responsibility to maintain the firearm in a safe and non-lethally dangerous condition by either containing it in an unloaded condition or by maintaining it in a locked and inoperable condition,” Cleary said.

Cleary also accuses the Goodwins of negligence because they “failed to ensure that the premises to which Jeffrey R. Charbonneau was invited on Nov. 25, 2010 was free of hazards such as a loaded and unsecured firearm within the dwelling.”

The killer is serving a one-year jail sentence.

Read the entire article at the link for far more details than I can provide here without violating copyright laws.

Moral of the story, don’t invite idiots to your home if you keep loaded guns around.

Update 4 PM: Bill Quick has taken me to task for my comments on this story:

Far too many gunners are willing to blame the innocent for gun problems. The subtext of Jeff’s response seems to actually blame the home owner for “not securing his weapons from idiot visitors.” How about placing the blame squarely and entirely where it belongs, on the idiots who behaved like idiots?

Really? I thought that I had covered that with:

One of the two (A) ignores every single gun safety rule and kills his friend (B) with a rifle hanging on the wall. Now the family of the killed are suing everyone in the (C) family.

Seems to me that I was placing the blame on (A) and (B)’s family in the before and after ‘article quote’ comments of mine; basically issuing a warning that you could be sued just because you (as I do) leave loaded firearms around your home and (though I don’t) invite an idiot in. It would be wonderful if you couldn’t be sued for the stupidity of others but that is not the world we live in. My point was that (A) was an idiot and that (B)’s family decided to sue (C) because of it. Those are the facts, like it or not. I was not justifying them — the (B) family suit — in any way.

There was no “subtext” so please don’t invent one that isn’t there. I thought that my closing line was sarcastically clever by using the term “idiot.”

Nowhere did I place the blame on (C).