BLUE EARTH - A personal injury case related to the accidental shooting of a Bricelyn teen in July 2008 moved forward Tuesday.

Collin Jacobson, now 16, of Bricelyn was shot in the face on July 22, 2008, causing the loss of his left eye, hearing in his left ear, and generating $400,000 in medical bills.

Jacobson was at Daniel Stallkamp's grandfather's home on the day of the incident. Attorneys for Jacobson and Eugene Stallkamp - owner of the home as well as the gun - presented their views of the case Tuesday.

Charles Suk, attorney for the Jacobsons, argues:

o Eugene Stallkamp had a duty to securely store his loaded handgun, knowing his grandson had previously burglarized the home and taken a handgun while in the commission of a crime, and was permissibly present at his home on a near daily basis.

o Eugene Stallkamp is liable for employing an individual (his grandson) whose background he knew exposed others to an unreasonable risk of harm and/or is vicariously liable for the negligent act of his employee, committed in the scope and course of his employment.

o Collin Jacobson merely handled the loaded firearm proffered by Daniel Stallkamp and is not guilty of primary assumption of risk.

Suk said when Jacobson and Daniel Stallkamp went to Eugene's property, Daniel was supposed to be working from 1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., out in the yard and on machinery. The gun discharged around 4:30 p.m.

The pair toured around the outer facilities when Jacobson had to use the bathroom. Suk said that according to Jacobson's account:

Jacobson said after he used the bathroom, Stallkamp showed him a gun, which he did not touch. Then Stallkamp showed him a shotgun, which he also did not touch.

Then they went downstairs and played pool for a while, until Jacobson felt uncomfortable being there and wanted to leave. Stallkamp wanted to check a social networking site on the computer before leaving.

After that, when they were upstairs, Stallkamp said he wanted to show Jacobson something. So Stallkamp dug into a crevice in the bedroom area and pulled a handgun out of a woman's purse. Jacobson remembers Stallkamp telling him to hold it, while Stallkamp was going to get a drink. The gun went off, with the bullet striking Jacobson in the left eye.

In court documents, Stallkamp stated he directed Jacobson to a bathroom. A short time later, he heard Jacobson say from his grandparents' bedroom "Come here, come here" and shortly afterward, Jacobson was shot in the eye.

Suk said Stallkamp tried calling his father, who is an EMT, multiple times.

"He attempted to drive away, but his father caught him," Suk said, adding that is why there were bloody handprints in a car. Craig Stallkamp asked if Jacobson was alive, and both father and son say they carefully placed the gun on the bed, according to Suk.

Suk then questioned whether Jacobson actually shot himself. State Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reports say three microscopic specs of residue were found on Jacobson's right hand. Suk questioned how the angle of the shot could have happened with Jacobson's right hand. Suk said after the deputies arrived, one took the handgun to the squad car and when he came back into the house, both Craig and Daniel Stallkamp were washing their hands.

"Of course there wasn't residue on Daniel Stallkamp's hands," Suk said, adding he thought the residue found on Jacobson was from a defensive gesture.

"Daniel was heard by a deputy sheriff repeatedly saying, 'I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry,'" Suk said. "When he was asked why, he said he was nervous."

Suk said the case isn't about property owner duty. Daniel Stallkamp had all the appearances of having permission to enter the home. Rather, Suk said it was standard negligence.

"Where (the rule) changes, is when you get into a relationship with strangers or social host," he said. "There is a recognizable reasonable risk of harm. That's certainly the case here. The grandfather knows his house had been burglarized, and chose not to prosecute because of that relationship."

R. Stephen Tillitt, attorney for Eugene Stallkamp, began his argument by saying there is no legal basis for the lawsuit because his client held no duty to liability as a landowner.

He said Jacobson had never before been to Eugene's home, never even met Eugene or his wife.

"Mr. Stallkamp didn't have any idea that day that Collin Jacobson or any other minor would be in his home," Tillitt said.

His main points were:

o Eugene owed no duty as a landowner because Jacobson had no permission to be there.

o Whatever duty Eugene may have owed was extinguished when Jacobson primarily assumed risk of handling the pistol.

o Eugene owed no duty to protect Jacobson from acts of third parties and owed no duty to protect others from the acts of Daniel Stallkamp because a special relationship is required between the parties.

o No degree of duty to protect, arises where some degree of dependence exists.

o Daniel Stallkamp was an adult at the time.

o It is not a case of negligent supervision because the incident was outside scope of employment.

o It was not negligent hiring because Daniel Stallkamp had not displayed requisite proclivity towards danger, and Eugene did not employ him in a position that involved contact with the public or coworkers.

o All admissible evidence supports the conclusion that Jacobson assumed risk of handling the pistol.

Tillitt said the only evidence from the day as to who handled the gun when it discharged came from Jacobson. He said Suk's comments about trajectory are not valid, since Suk is not a trajectory expert, nor does he have one to testify.

Tillitt pointed at Suk's focus on Daniel Stallkamp's criminal history, and noted there is no pattern of violence, only property-related crimes. Therefore, Eugene Stallkamp should have had no reason to be expected to control his adult grandson.