Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Couple's Home Mistakenly Used For Artillery Practice

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the horseshoes-and-artillery-rounds dept.

Idle 8

Kathy and Rich Nelson are still a little shell shocked after a stray 102-pound artillery shell narrowly missed their house and plowed a path through their woods. The shell fired from Camp Ripley, Minn., was one of eight inert wax-filled rounds fired during a test by BAE Systems. The shell streaked over the Nelson home, startling three remodelers, two of whom were outside sawing cabinetry materials. "I was upstairs and had the window open and I heard this loud ppsshh, like a giant bottle rocket being set off, and it wasn't three seconds and it was right over us," said Loren Patnode of Patnode Custom Cabinets.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Holly crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27713431)

This is aggressive negligence. They need a lawsuit.

Re:Holly crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27714731)

how would a lawsuit help anything? Nobody was hurt, and it would just be them trying to skim a freebie off of the legal system. Oh noez, a big corporation/organization/government did something that almost affected me. They must be punished!

Re:Holly crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721093)

Great! So I can walk over to you, fire a gun at you, and miss, and then it's just fine because "Nobody was hurt"?

Re:Holly crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724231)

Except you had a different intention. I'm curious which was there first, though. The firing range or their home. It's like folks that buy cheap land by the airport, build and then complain about the noise.

Re:Holly crap. (1)

Argumentator (1524195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724887)

Negligence does not require malicious intent. As long as the party had to provide a certain level of duty of care, and failed to provide that level, they are liable. Analogy: If some gangster was randomly shooting his gun just for fun, and one of the bullets happened to stray and kill someone, he'd still be liable, both civilly and criminally, even though it wasn't his intention to kill anyone. However, unless there were actual damages (which according to the article, weren't), the couple have no standing to sue for money.

That being said, whoever authorized that shelling should be disciplined/fired/charged, depending on their exact role and the level of duty of care they were obliged, and failed, to follow.

Re:Holy crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27726875)

And if the wind changed directions suddenly and with no prior indication, can we sue God?

Re:Holy crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27728427)

of course! and then it would go to hell.

wow (1)

topnob (1195249) | more than 5 years ago | (#27726211)

wow
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?