4 ms·

>shop owner who sells, for example, duct tape, a ski mask, and zip ties to a kidnapper could have even civil liability? I feel this has been exhaustively expla

>shop owner who sells, for example, duct tape, a ski mask, and zip ties to a kidnapper could have even civil liability? I feel this has been exhaustively explained and reexplained throughout the thread, so the answer is: maybe...if the shop owner knew or should have known those items would be used in the commission of a crime, then yes there is potential liability. In your example even if the kidnapper didn’t disclose his intent the particular grouping of items may in fact suggest the shop owner knew or should have known, and of course other facts are relevant. For example, it’s a small town and the shop owner knows the purchaser as a felon with a history of violent crimes using duct tape and a ski mask. That said maybe the facts suggest the shop owner didn’t know and had no reason to even predict the items would be used in a crime (maybe these are items typically purchased together from the shop). As dragonwriter stated these cases are typically negligence cases, especially in firearms/ammo cases where there is federal law to protect arms dealers (thank NRA). Here is a link to an article about a ammo case against Walmart (sold bullets to a drunk guy who gave the bullets to a kid after walking outside and 15 minutes after purchase shot and killed someone), my guess is Walmart won’t be found negligent. The article notes a second case where a gun shop sold a gun to someone who workers had suspicions was buying the gun for someone else (the gun was bought for someone else who used it to kill 2 police), they were found liable. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/01/08/wal-mart-sued-over-sale-of-bullets-used-in-pennsylvania-murders.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/01/08/wal... Here is a second article against Walmart again where Walmart entered into a confidential settlement before trial. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-walmart-settles-shooting-ammunition-sale-lawsuit-20170406-story,amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-... Sorry don’t have the time now to pull up the case styles.

gnicholas 8y ago
> I feel this has been exhaustively explained and reexplained throughout the thread Sorry — I'm on mobile and was just looking at this thread via /comments. Didn't realized it had been discussed elsewhere. Thanks for sharing the case info. Sounds like there haven't been (m)any cases where liability was established, which fits with my understanding of the limits of tort law (and lack of similar statutory laws).
- will_brown 8y ago
  The second case in the first link there was a trial and verdict finding liability for the seller (note there was evidence the gun shop employees had suspicions the buyer was illegally buying the gun/ammo for someone else, they sold it anyway, and the gun/ammo was bought for someone else who used the same to kill 2 police). Again one must Keep in mind <10% of cases go to trial and verdict, so the result speaks for itself, but you are right. In general there aren’t a ton of cases against merchants alleging they sold an item they knew would be used in a crime - it should be a surprise most criminals don’t announce their intent when making purchases - and gun/ammo cases are about as prolific as any for these claims (hence why I keep using that hypothetical). A prime example is The 2nd article Walmart where they settled that case, so we will never know, but if Walmart settles it’s safe to say there were facts suggesting Walmart liability meaning in that case they knew or should have known they were selling ammo that would be used in a crime. I’d place my money on SF settling this case in the same fashion, not to say they would be found liable at trial, it just seems with the available facts there is potential liability and these facts won’t play well to a jury.

gnicholas 8y ago

> I feel this has been exhaustively explained and reexplained throughout the thread Sorry — I'm on mobile and was just looking at this thread via /comments. Didn't realized it had been discussed elsewhere. Thanks for sharing the case info. Sounds like there haven't been (m)any cases where liability was established, which fits with my understanding of the limits of tort law (and lack of similar statutory laws).

will_brown 8y ago
The second case in the first link there was a trial and verdict finding liability for the seller (note there was evidence the gun shop employees had suspicions the buyer was illegally buying the gun/ammo for someone else, they sold it anyway, and the gun/ammo was bought for someone else who used the same to kill 2 police). Again one must Keep in mind <10% of cases go to trial and verdict, so the result speaks for itself, but you are right. In general there aren’t a ton of cases against merchants alleging they sold an item they knew would be used in a crime - it should be a surprise most criminals don’t announce their intent when making purchases - and gun/ammo cases are about as prolific as any for these claims (hence why I keep using that hypothetical). A prime example is The 2nd article Walmart where they settled that case, so we will never know, but if Walmart settles it’s safe to say there were facts suggesting Walmart liability meaning in that case they knew or should have known they were selling ammo that would be used in a crime. I’d place my money on SF settling this case in the same fashion, not to say they would be found liable at trial, it just seems with the available facts there is potential liability and these facts won’t play well to a jury.