Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Couple's Home Mistakenly Used For Artillery Practice

Posted by samzenpus on from the horseshoes-and-artillery-rounds dept.

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.

8 comments

  1. Holly crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is aggressive negligence. They need a lawsuit.

    1. Re:Holly crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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!

    2. Re:Holly crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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"?

    3. Re:Holly crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re:Holly crap. by Argumentator · · Score: 1

      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.

  2. wow by topnob · · Score: 1

    wow

  3. Re:Holy crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  4. Re:Holy crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course! and then it would go to hell.