Woman hurt in mall attack files suit against shop
that sold killer his gun
Carolyn Tuft, an injured survivor of gunman Sulejman Talovic's rampage at Trolley Square mall a year ago today, has filed a lawsuit against the gun shop where Talovic was illegally sold the shotgun he used to shoot her and kill her daughter.
The 3rd District Court lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for Tuft's injuries and the death of her daughter, 15-year-old Kirsten Hinckley.
Tuft this morning visited Cabin Fever, the store where she was injured and her daughter died, as part of a silent memorial underway at the mall. She declined to comment on the litigation.
The lawsuit names Rocky Mountain Enterprises Inc., a Nevada corporation doing business as Sportsman's FastCash.
Licensed firearms dealer Westley Wayne Hill sold Talovic the pistol-grip shotgun at the West Valley City store on Nov. 13, 2006.
Hill, 39, pleaded guilty to failing to indicate on a form whether Talovic showed a second form of identification, required because Talovic, a Bosnian, was a legal alien. He was sentenced to a year on probation and a $500 fine.
In the plea deal, prosecutors dropped a felony charge that alleged the sale also was illegal because the gun's pistol grip required a buyer to be age 21 or older.
The lawsuit asserts the sale was illegal on both grounds, the incomplete paperwork and the underage sale of a pistol-grip shotgun without a shoulder stock. It also claims Hill and the shop reasonably should have known Talovic intended to use the gun in a crime.
Talovic killed Hinckley and four other shoppers, and wounded Tuft and three others on Feb. 12, 2007, before he was fatally shot by police. A final Salt Lake City police report issued in January found no specific motive for his attack.
The suit seeks damages for Tuft's loss of her daughter, the pain the teenager endured before she died, and for her daughter's medical and funeral expenses. It also seeks compensation for Tuft's medical bills and continuing treatment, and her permanent injuries, but no amount is specified.
Tuft, 45, was shot multiple times, which severely injured her right arm, and her back. Today, she has a weakened right arm, limited use of her hand, a limp, and is in constant pain, in part from lead poisoning from the pellets that remain in her body, she said last week.
In December, surgeons added fat to her weakened right arm, because the gunshots had ripped it to the bone. Later this month, another surgery should improve the movement in her right hand.
Before the shooting, Tuft had worked as a commissioned artist and housecleaner, but is now unable to work. She said last week she keeps getting up and facing the day and striving to inspire her surviving children.
"If I don't, if I cave in, then the shooter won - I can't let him win," she said. "My life is going to pass. I want it to be full of good things, so I have to make those happen."
Carolyn Tuft, an injured survivor of gunman Sulejman Talovic's rampage at Trolley Square mall a year ago today, has filed a lawsuit against the gun shop where Talovic was illegally sold the shotgun he used to shoot her and kill her daughter.
The 3rd District Court lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for Tuft's injuries and the death of her daughter, 15-year-old Kirsten Hinckley.
Tuft this morning visited Cabin Fever, the store where she was injured and her daughter died, as part of a silent memorial underway at the mall. She declined to comment on the litigation.
The lawsuit names Rocky Mountain Enterprises Inc., a Nevada corporation doing business as Sportsman's FastCash.
Licensed firearms dealer Westley Wayne Hill sold Talovic the pistol-grip shotgun at the West Valley City store on Nov. 13, 2006.
Hill, 39, pleaded guilty to failing to indicate on a form whether Talovic showed a second form of identification, required because Talovic, a Bosnian, was a legal alien. He was sentenced to a year on probation and a $500 fine.
In the plea deal, prosecutors dropped a felony charge that alleged the sale also was illegal because the gun's pistol grip required a buyer to be age 21 or older.
The lawsuit asserts the sale was illegal on both grounds, the incomplete paperwork and the underage sale of a pistol-grip shotgun without a shoulder stock. It also claims Hill and the shop reasonably should have known Talovic intended to use the gun in a crime.
Talovic killed Hinckley and four other shoppers, and wounded Tuft and three others on Feb. 12, 2007, before he was fatally shot by police. A final Salt Lake City police report issued in January found no specific motive for his attack.
The suit seeks damages for Tuft's loss of her daughter, the pain the teenager endured before she died, and for her daughter's medical and funeral expenses. It also seeks compensation for Tuft's medical bills and continuing treatment, and her permanent injuries, but no amount is specified.
Tuft, 45, was shot multiple times, which severely injured her right arm, and her back. Today, she has a weakened right arm, limited use of her hand, a limp, and is in constant pain, in part from lead poisoning from the pellets that remain in her body, she said last week.
In December, surgeons added fat to her weakened right arm, because the gunshots had ripped it to the bone. Later this month, another surgery should improve the movement in her right hand.
Before the shooting, Tuft had worked as a commissioned artist and housecleaner, but is now unable to work. She said last week she keeps getting up and facing the day and striving to inspire her surviving children.
"If I don't, if I cave in, then the shooter won - I can't let him win," she said. "My life is going to pass. I want it to be full of good things, so I have to make those happen."
0
-
Causation? 0 -
how about suing the parents for producing a defective child? 0 -
Sue the car company that sold him the car to get to the mall. 0 -
mateo, you are the resident legal icon here.
I can see the suit based upon failing to properly obtain a second form of ID from a legal alien and can possibly even see the part about a pistol grip shotgun to someone under 21 (since that is the state law).
I fail to see how the shop could be found guilty on the charge of "the shop reasonably should have known Talovic intended to use the gun in a crime". So here are a few questions on that issue:
1. Did Talovic pass a NICS check? If so, then can we also charge the FBI/BATF/et al as they also "reasonably should have known Talovic intended to use the gun in a crime"
2. Following above logic, can ICE also be charged for granting Legal Alien status to a person "they should have reasonably known would committ a crime"
3. Do we take it one step more and charge the maker and dealer of the automobile that he used to get to the scene of the crime as an "enabler" in the commission of said crime. They should have known.
Nail the dealer for failing to follow the law as it is written, but to now hold him accountable for not having either the clairevoyance or the ability to psychoanalyze every buyer for the potential to committ a crime is asinine at best.0 -
dang BR...seems we think alike 0 -
quote:Originally posted by medic07
mateo, you are the resident legal icon here.
I can see the suit based upon failing to properly obtain a second form of ID from a legal alien and can possibly even see the part about a pistol grip shotgun to someone under 21 (since that is the state law).
I fail to see how the shop could be found guilty on the charge of "the shop reasonably should have known Talovic intended to use the gun in a crime". So here are a few questions on that issue:
1. Did Talovic pass a NICS check? If so, then can we also charge the FBI/BATF/et al as they also "reasonably should have known Talovic intended to use the gun in a crime"
2. Following above logic, can ICE also be charged for granting Legal Alien status to a person "they should have reasonably known would committ a crime"
3. Do we take it one step more and charge the maker and dealer of the automobile that he used to get to the scene of the crime as an "enabler" in the commission of said crime. They should have known.
Nail the dealer for failing to follow the law as it is written, but to now hold him accountable for not having either the clairevoyance or the ability to psychoanalyze every buyer for the potential to committ a crime is asinine at best.
Now if he had bought a an unmodified shotgun and cut the stock off---[:0]0 -
quote:Originally posted by medic07
mateo, you are the resident legal icon here.
I can see the suit based upon failing to properly obtain a second form of ID from a legal alien and can possibly even see the part about a pistol grip shotgun to someone under 21 (since that is the state law).
I fail to see how the shop could be found guilty on the charge of "the shop reasonably should have known Talovic intended to use the gun in a crime". So here are a few questions on that issue:
1. Did Talovic pass a NICS check? If so, then can we also charge the FBI/BATF/et al as they also "reasonably should have known Talovic intended to use the gun in a crime"
2. Following above logic, can ICE also be charged for granting Legal Alien status to a person "they should have reasonably known would committ a crime"
3. Do we take it one step more and charge the maker and dealer of the automobile that he used to get to the scene of the crime as an "enabler" in the commission of said crime. They should have known.
Nail the dealer for failing to follow the law as it is written, but to now hold him accountable for not having either the clairevoyance or the ability to psychoanalyze every buyer for the potential to committ a crime is asinine at best.
It's about the chain of causation. Did he buy the gun and immediately go kill someone? Did he buy the gun and rampage six months later? Here some time passed. The dealer was negligent in his selling practices, but did this negligence cause the damages? Where's the nexus? At what point does "but for" fail?
All rise!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments