Employer liability in gun free zone?

[WildBill]

I also think it is a tough case to make against a business for an action not committed by an employee or as a result of the business' negligence in this instance.

I also think Ameer has a point and is something I, too, wondered about. How successful has anyone been suing the state because they were injured in a place made off-limits by the legislature? I suspect, not very successful if it has even been tried.

I don't know if it's legally possible to do this.

[C-dub]

I also think it is a tough case to make against a business for an action not committed by an employee or as a result of the business' negligence in this instance.

I also think Ameer has a point and is something I, too, wondered about. How successful has anyone been suing the state because they were injured in a place made off-limits by the legislature? I suspect, not very successful if it has even been tried.

I don't know if it's legally possible to do this.

Probably isn't. Governments like to protect themselves from liability pretty well.

[rm9792]

I .

Probably isn't. Governments like to protect themselves from liability pretty well.

Amazing how that works.

[SlowDave]

I have no idea whether it would work, but I had the same conversation with my spouse. If I get shot and killed in a Free Fire Zone for Criminals Only, she should do whatever is possible towards suing the heck out of the company or person who disallowed my self-defense.

I don't think it would "work". First, how would you prove that you wouldn't have been shot or killed if you were allowed to have a gun?

Think about a situation where you were in a business that allowed concealed carry and you were not armed. Could the business owner say that he has no responsibility for your safety because and it was your fault that you got shot because you didn't carry a gun to defend yourself? I would think that it would have to work both ways.

I'm okay with that "both ways" thing, because as I see it, that's the way it is now, except one way: they are never responsible. I shouldn't have to prove that I would have been successful at defending myself, I am suing them for not allowing me a chance. They made the environment more dangerous for me by not allowing me a chance to defend myself. It is difficult to think of a corollary example for something not involving guns though.

Okay, here goes, but granted, it is a BIG reach. Company has a construction site but doesn't allow hard hats from outside. But they fail to provide a hard hat and I get injured by a falling object. I don't have to prove the hard hat would have prevented the injury. Just that they wouldn't let me attempt to protect myself. It's a ridiculous example, I know, but I think the logic flow may apply to the self defense situation. Or not. Thoughts?

[C-dub]

I'm okay with that "both ways" thing, because as I see it, that's the way it is now, except one way: they are never responsible. I shouldn't have to prove that I would have been successful at defending myself, I am suing them for not allowing me a chance. They made the environment more dangerous for me by not allowing me a chance to defend myself. It is difficult to think of a corollary example for something not involving guns though.

Okay, here goes, but granted, it is a BIG reach. Company has a construction site but doesn't allow hard hats from outside. But they fail to provide a hard hat and I get injured by a falling object. I don't have to prove the hard hat would have prevented the injury. Just that they wouldn't let me attempt to protect myself. It's a ridiculous example, I know, but I think the logic flow may apply to the self defense situation. Or not. Thoughts?

It's not completely ridiculous, just not very likely due to OSHA regulations. And that if you were not an employee you might even be allowed onsite.

However, like WildBill said, knowing you were not allowed to carry, you still choose to enter or continue working there. I am in that situation. Not only does my employer forbid firearms inside, they still flaunt the law and have not changed their policy regarding the parking lot, but I still work there. If anything were to happen to me because another employee or outsider, who by the way are not prohibited from carrying with a CHL, I doubt my wife would have much luck getting anything other than what I'm insured for from my company.

I know many of us would like business' to be found liable in situations like these so that they might take down their 30.06 signs or change a policy, but I'm sure there are also many business owners here rolling their eyes at this thread again.

[tbrown]

I also think Ameer has a point and is something I, too, wondered about. How successful has anyone been suing the state because they were injured in a place made off-limits by the legislature? I suspect, not very successful if it has even been tried.

It's a great point. Until the legislators and governor COWBOY UP and accept liability for disarming Texas citizens by statute (including Texans who don't have a CHL) it would be hypocritical and dishonorable for them to impose civil liability on private property owners who post a 30.06 sign as authorized by law.

[GhostTX]

I'm okay with that "both ways" thing, because as I see it, that's the way it is now, except one way: they are never responsible. I shouldn't have to prove that I would have been successful at defending myself, I am suing them for not allowing me a chance. They made the environment more dangerous for me by not allowing me a chance to defend myself. It is difficult to think of a corollary example for something not involving guns though.

Okay, here goes, but granted, it is a BIG reach. Company has a construction site but doesn't allow hard hats from outside. But they fail to provide a hard hat and I get injured by a falling object. I don't have to prove the hard hat would have prevented the injury. Just that they wouldn't let me attempt to protect myself. It's a ridiculous example, I know, but I think the logic flow may apply to the self defense situation. Or not. Thoughts?

It's not completely ridiculous, just not very likely due to OSHA regulations. And that if you were not an employee you might even be allowed onsite.

However, like WildBill said, knowing you were not allowed to carry, you still choose to enter or continue working there. I am in that situation. Not only does my employer forbid firearms inside, they still flaunt the law and have not changed their policy regarding the parking lot, but I still work there. If anything were to happen to me because another employee or outsider, who by the way are not prohibited from carrying with a CHL, I doubt my wife would have much luck getting anything other than what I'm insured for from my company.

I know many of us would like business' to be found liable in situations like these so that they might take down their 30.06 signs or change a policy, but I'm sure there are also many business owners here rolling their eyes at this thread again.

I'm in the same boat as you, C-dub: HR policy makes termination of employment if caught with a "weapon", there's laughable "gun buster" verbiage on the entrances, they maintain a parking lot policy knowingly in violation of SB321 and the real kicker...absolutely no security. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Not even locked doors when the business is in operation (and there's multiple shifts).

Sadly, we've also had very high turnover. I'm not liking the odds I have with workplace violence happening there.

[JALLEN]

I .

Probably isn't. Governments like to protect themselves from liability pretty well.

Amazing how that works.

Why should government worry about it? They seldom worry about the cost of anything else that they want to do. Just raise taxes a bit.

It used to be that "the King could do no wrong," and hence was not responsible for anything. That has evolved over the years, in many places, to "the King can do no right."

Do you want the taxpayers to foot the bill for every person who gets injured, even more so than now?

[recaffeination]

I want bad people to be held responsible for their actions and not be shielded because they work for the government or a large corporation and they were just following orders.

[jordanmills]

I would love to see that liability legislated. Someone gets shot in your designated victim zone, you automatically share liability with the actor.

That's only fair if the legislature and governor share liability if someone is shot where the law disarmed the CHL. You know, like schools, bars, racetracks, courts, and so on.

I'm kind of okay with that too.

[Valor]

More 30.06 signs may come down once business owners are indemnified from civil remedy due to a CHL stray bullet injuring/killing innocent bystanders?

[WildBill]

More 30.06 signs may come down once business owners are indemnified from civil remedy due to a CHL stray bullet injuring/killing innocent bystanders?

I doubt that.

[C-dub]

More 30.06 signs may come down once business owners are indemnified from civil remedy due to a CHL stray bullet injuring/killing innocent bystanders?

I doubt that.

I don't know. They might, but it will take a court action to confirm that. Someone will have to try and sue a business and have the case dismissed before others really believe it and begin to take down their signs.

[balk-a-nite]

We are not allowed to carry at my work place becouse the head people think we are safe behind a fence , but we have been burglarized before and the trucks have been broken into over and over ,, its just a matter of time before we are Robbed at gun point or a crazed un happy customer starts shooting the place up!!!

[JALLEN]

We are not allowed to carry at my work place becouse the head people think we are safe behind a fence , but we have been burglarized before and the trucks have been broken into over and over ,, its just a matter of time before we are Robbed at gun point or a crazed un happy customer starts shooting the place up!!!

My guess is that for the most part this is driven by insurance policy considerations. If they do not have a policy to ban guns, the premium goes up.... something like that. Ban guns, save money on premiums.

I'd love to see some of the employer premises liability policies.