Texas-Book-Gun Law Armed And Educated - Flipbook - Page 415
For a gun owner, the most obvious cases of proximate cause are
pulling the trigger on a firearm and hitting the aimed-at person
or thing. The law will hold that your action proximately caused
whatever physical damage the bullet did to persons or property.
But what about those circumstances where the use of the gun
is so far removed from the damages claimed? This is where the
doctrine of proximate cause will cut off liability. If the damage is
too far removed from the act of firing the gun, then it cannot be a
proximate cause of the damage.
EXAMPLE:
James is cleaning his AR-15 one night in his apartment and is
negligent in his handling of the rifle. He has an accidental discharge
and the bullet goes through the wall of his apartment and strikes
his neighbor, Donny, in the leg. Donny, although in massive pain,
received prompt medical care from his wife, Catherine, and made
a speedy recovery.
If James is later sued by Donny and his wife Catherine, James’
negligence undoubtedly “proximately caused” damages for things
like Donny’s medical bills, hospital stay, and perhaps even lost
wages. But what if Catherine claims that because of her having to
treat Donny’s wounds that she missed a big job interview and lost
out on a big raise in pay? The law would hold that Catherine likely
could not recover damages for her lost raise in pay because the loss
would not be “proximately caused” by the sued-upon action. To
put it another way, it is reasonably foreseeable that the negligent
discharge of a firearm will cause medical bills for someone struck
by a bullet. Therefore, this is recoverable. However, the law
would say that the loss of a possible job opportunity for the wife
who treated the person who was actually shot is not a reasonably
404 | CHAPTER SIXTEEN
