FAMILY OF GUN INSTRUCTOR SLAIN BY 9-YR-OLD FIRING UZI FILES WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT

[Liberal_in_LA]

The children of an Arizona gun instructor accidentally killed by a 9-year-old firing an Uzi at a gun range are filing a wrongful death lawsuit against the business's owners.

"The gun range created an unsafe and dangerous environment that ultimately lead to my dad's death" said Ellie Vacca, the 17-year-old daughter of Charles Vacca, on "Good Morning America" today.

The gun instructor's family spoke to ABC News exactly two years after the tragic accident, saying they want the owners of shooting range to be held responsible.

The wrongful death suit claims that the mini Uzi 9MM that fired the fatal shot should never have been placed in the girl's hands.

"What we have here is a complaint that says the operation we saw where Charlie Vacca was killed was fundamentally unsafe. It's fundamentally unsafe to give machine guns to children," said James Goodnow, the attorney representing the Vacca family in the suit

http://abc7ny.com/news/family-of-gun-instructor-slain-by-9-yr-old-firing-uzi-files-wrongful-death-suit/1485988/

[jberryhill]

1. I might as well post my usual note here

This is an argument between insurance companies.

The people in the suit are actors on a stage, and one of the rules of litigation is that you are not allowed to mention the insurance companies.

[linuxman]

2. This should be good.

Who to side with? The family, as they could put an evil range out of business when their dad was the one who created the unsafe situation, or the range, as the silly gun jumper essentially killed his self.

[Lee-Lee]

3. Sorry, that is 100% the instructors fault

Poor judgement coupled with failure to maintain positive control of the firearm were 100% his fault.

[Tempest]

4. "Now his family is hoping they can eventually find peace."

Sounds like they're trying to find money.

He created the unsafe conditions by placing the gun in her hands. The firing range didn't make that decision, he did.

The minimum age for shooting in AZ at the time was 8 years old. The Uzi was legal to own.

I hope the judge or jury see through this facade and rule against them.

[csziggy]

7. The family relied on the expertise of the gun instructor

His expertise led them to believe it was safe for their daughter to handle the gun. As an expert he should have known better.

If I were on a jury on the case, I would award damages to the little girl for the trauma she experienced and tell the family of the gun instructor to take a leap!

[Tempest]

8. You obviously don't understand who is suing who

The family of the girl is not suing. It's the family of the instructor killed who is suing.

For fuck's sake. It's in the subject line of the original post.

" FAMILY OF GUN INSTRUCTOR"

[csziggy]

15. YES I DO yunderstand who is suing whom

The point is that the instructor's family doesn't have grounds for a suit. The person who was killed was the expert who used his "expertise" to put a gun in the hand of a child who was not able to control it.

When someone sets themselves up as an expert, they are responsible for what happens even if it is their own death.

For fuck's sake - there is no reason to be so insulting.

[joshcryer]

13. Money is peace if the person involved is a breadwinner...

...I don't see the contradiction there.

Obviously he had some responsibility for himself there, as well, and perhaps the case will be effectively argued. But there's also a bit of training here that was lacking, as the gun in question rotated and shot him in the face, he should've been prepared for that possibility.

I believe that the family has their right to see this in court. I hope the situation handles itself amicably and everyone can move on.

[dembotoz]

5. just part of the lawyer full employment program

[Ohioblue22]

6. Did the parents tell the owner to never let their child handle a gun?

[Tempest]

9. Irrelevant to the lawsuit the family filed

They are claiming the owners of the gun range shouldn't have allowed her to handle the gun.

But state law allowed it if one of her parents was present. Which there was.

[Ohioblue22]

12. It wouldn't be irrelevant to me of it were on the jury.

I believe that it is the parent who shouldn't have allowed her to have the gun. And that perhaps this child should be removed from this "parent" before she let's her daughter kill someone else or herself

[ManiacJoe]

10. The instructor was at fault.

Unfortunately, since he is dead, there can be no revenge for his survivors on the guilty.

[JI7]

11. the victim in this case is the 9 year old girl with the guilty being everyone from her own parents

to the instructor and gun range .

[Whiskeytide]

16. The lawyer has, I think, already lost the case...

..." 'It's fundamentally unsafe to give machine guns to children,' said James Goodnow, the attorney representing the Vacca family in the suit."

I think that's a true statement - especially fully auto weapons. But Lawyer Goodnow needs to watch how he states that opinion.

Apparently it was the decedent who gave the machine gun to the child. He had worked for the range as an instructor for a year and a half, and putting guns in the hands of children was part of his job. If it was so fundamentally unsafe - enough so that the range should have refused to do it even though the law allowed it - then he should have recognized it as such as well and refused to do it or quit the job.

However - the family should be entitled to a worker's compensation death benefit from the range, as that is typically owed regardless of fault.

[frankieallen]

17. who the hell would allow a 9 year old to hold a loaded Uzi??