In a move that has caused me to reconsider how discerning I’ve been about who I “Friend” on Facebook, one of the people in my newsfeed has posted the picture below, with the comment: “Had to share…lol”
I’m not prepared to assert that such a sign actually exists in any front yard in America. The whole thing COULD be a troll.
However, I commented on the photo with the following:
So, SDMB legal Eagles (and anyone else capable of coming up with a cited response), what’s the deal? If the “UNARMED” household is victimized, has the displayer of the sign performed a tortious act?
Well it’ll deter all the gun-seeking burglars from robbing the neighbour’s house so maybe it balances out?
Personally I can’t see how the sign-erector could have any liability in tort for the actions of a third party burglar. Being a jerk isn’t a tort in itself.
Seems fair. One could imagine a scenario with someone putting up the sign knowing full well that the neighbor is very well armed, intending to dupe criminals into trying to rob the house with their guard down and end up shot.
If such a house/sign exists, it could very well be a reaction to the neighbor being a dope and putting up one of those “This is a gun free household” signs.
Apparently. Though I’ve only seen one in front of a house in real life, and it didn’t look like the posted picture. But I could find one like it looked like online.
If I was a Plaintiff’s lawyer and could show that the sign induced a burglar to invade the house, I would make a case for comparative negligence on the part of the property owner.
Comparative negligence (aka contributory negligence for us non-US dopers) is more of a defence isn’t it? You’re arguing the plaintiff’s own negligence was a contributing factor to the loss and therefore the defendant’s liability should be reduced proportionately.
Avoiding the whole vicarious liability thing how about suing for defamation? “The sign reduced my reputation amongst right-thinking society by saying I advocate extreme gun control…”
Or (at a stretch) invasion of privacy? “The sign made public my political stance on gun control contrary to my right to be left alone…”
No, I’m arguing that the burglar was responsible for the majority of the robbery, but the neighbor is still negligent for posting the sign inviting the burglar to rob the house. Plaintiff is zero percent at fault. Chances are the burglar has nothing to recover from a lawsuit. Neighbor probably has homeowner’s insurance that will pay.
I should have just said “negligence” but then it would have been followed by posts about the burglar..
"I don’t have anything worth stealing, but this guy has a shitload of nice guns. He’s goes to work at 7 and doesn’t get back until 5. Plus he leaves for a 2 week vacation next week.
Let’s see, the definition of aiding and abetting is that there was a violation of the law, the aider and abetter provided substantial assistance to the person who committed the violation, and the aider and abetter had at least a general knowledge, or was reckless in not knowing, that the perpetrator was acting wrongfully.
I don’t really think that the person who put up a sign like that would be charged with aiding and abetting (usually it’s only a crime or administrative violation; there typically isn’t a private right of action), but maybe it could happen with sufficiently egregious facts or if the prosecutor were sufficiently ticked off. The hard part would be proving that the sign actually provided substantial assistance to the burglar/robber. In an ordinary case, I don’t in fact think that such a sign would be of any assistance to a would-be burglar/robber.
I’m not a criminal lawyer, but I don’t see a criminal case against the neighbor. I’m not sure you’ve got a winning civil case either, but you could probably come up with something. Maybe a claim on the tort of improper dissemination of private facts, or you could come up with a theory that the neighbor is somehow acting as a procurer to the burglar, making liability lie via respondeat superior (the master is responsible for the actions of his agent). nuisance and negligence claims are also feasible, as mentioned above. Like I said, I think any of these is tough to win (private facts seems the best shot), but I can see surviving prelimiany motions to dismiss, so at least the guy will have to bleed some attorneys’ fees.
My expertise is in criminal law, and I don’t see any criminal case here.
I don’t see a civil case either, but I’ll defer to more seasoned civil practioners. Cliffy seems to offer a cogent analysis. I think here’s enough here to survive a 10(b)(6) motion but not a Rule 56 motion. So you could at least make the neighbor cough up enough legal fees to file an answer to avoid a default judgment, and answer some interrogatories, but ultimately, you’re not going to be able to plead facts that would get you to trial, much less a win. (This assumes, though, that the neighbor was sufficiently public about his lack of guns that the sign-poster’s disclosure is not a matter of private facts).
