TexasCHLforum.com

Just wondering if a business owner might face liability if employees are killed at a workplace where employees are not allowed to CC. I'm thinking about the family of a CHL holder who was killed, while unarmed at work. Anybody seen anything like this?
(Hypothetical only. I do not know of any such incident.)

BigGuy wrote:Just wondering if a business owner might face liability if employees are killed at a workplace where employees are not allowed to CC. I'm thinking about the family of a CHL holder who was killed, while unarmed at work. Anybody seen anything like this?
(Hypothetical only. I do not know of any such incident.)

We are all waiting to see how this issue would fare in the courts of public opinion and the judiciary.

However I believe that many of us do not want to be the test-case.

I've already had that conversation with my wife... That if I'm killed by a BG in a GFZ, she needs to be sure and hand the lawyer my CHL. Some of those GFZ's are unavoidable.

Purplehood wrote: However I believe that many of us do not want to be the test-case.

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

Premises liability - which is based on common law negligence - may still give rise to liability if the property owner (or person in control of the property) fails to takes those steps which a "reasonable" person might otherwise take in similar circumstances.

For example, if a department store is open 24x7 and provides a parking lot for its patrons and knows (or reasonably should know) that criminal activity in that parking lot is a danger to those patrons, but fails to take reasonable steps to provide for the safety of those patrons (say, at 3 AM), they can potentially be liable for damages. This is somewhat similar to a homeowner being liable to an invitee or guest for damages because of a "hidden danger" on the property. The burden would be on the plaintiff to show that the department store did not take those reasonable steps, however. Depending on the circumstances, that could be a difficult burden. I could envision circumstances where one might bolster their argument by pointing out that the store chose to post a 30.06 sign, though that would clearly only be support for - and not the totality of - the argument.

There was a suit against K-Mart along these lines. A kidnap-rape victim failed to prove that the owners of the shopping center where the abduction occurred were guilty of negligence.

http://www.plainvanillashell.com/archiv ... asp?id=739

Also consider the analogy to the "natural accumulation" rule for winter slip-and-fall claims. The more the merchant does to "protect" customers, the more they may be liable if things turn out badly. The less they do to "protect" customers, effectively telling customers that they patronize the establishment at their own risk, the less the merchant's liability. Naturally, there would be a debate between the anti-gun and pro-gun forces as to what truly "protects" the customers, but it would seem that the passive default of not posting signage is most equivalent to the "natural accumulation" rule.

I have no case law to support that, just the rationale.

Finally, there are cases where a tenant sued a landlord for injuries suffered at the hands of a criminal. In almost every case, it's a loser for the Plaintiff. The issue is the intervening cause, which is the violent actions of a criminal.

It's hard to make a causation case against the property owner, particularly where the law specifically allows the activity you are complaining about: posting 30.06 signage. This is a dry hole.

Jumping Frog wrote: ...Finally, there are cases where a tenant sued a landlord for injuries suffered at the hands of a criminal. In almost every case, it's a loser for the Plaintiff....

Frog,

While I certainly concur with your bottom line, I do think that the quoted language may be somewhat an overstatement where it uses the words "in almost every case." There have been notable cases here in Texas where a landlord was found to have been negligent, if not grossly negligent, in the necessary security of the premises under the particular circumstances, leading to the injury of a person or persons. Owners/operators of apartment houses are typical defendants, and the typical plaintiff has been raped on the premises. Given the unfortunate propensity of some judges in Texas to seal records of trial at the request of defendants and/or their insurance companies I would not be surprised if such cases were often not easily located.

As I said earlier, I share your view on the OP's question, for the reasons you stated.

Jim

There are always exceptions to the general case. The general case is still the normal expected outcome.

jordanmills wrote: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.

Jumping Frog wrote:There are always exceptions to the general case. The general case is still the normal expected outcome.

Some years ago, a title company here sponsored a seminar on Investing in Texas Real Estate. I went. The panel included a real estate broker, a developer from Houston, a lawyer from Dallas, etc. After a very informative presentation on the laws and practices in Texas, the panel took questions from the audience.

One fellow strode to the microphone and said, "I want to know about two things...... subdivision regulations, and tenant's rights."

The panelists kind of looked at each other in momentary uncertainty and confusion, then the lawyer spoke into the microphone, "Few..... and none!"

JALLEN wrote:One fellow strode to the microphone and said, "I want to know about two things...... subdivision regulations, and tenant's rights."

The panelists kind of looked at each other in momentary uncertainty and confusion, then the lawyer spoke into the microphone, "Few..... and none!"

He sounds like someone who never tried to evict an uncooperative tenant in Texas.

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 know if she'd find a lawyer to take it, and if she did, I don't know if they'd win, but someone should at least make some noise about this and get it on the radar of employers and others who, I think, currently take what they feel is the "safe route" of disallowing weapons on the site. I'd like for them to at least worry a bit about liability and the other side of the coin when they consider this issue.

SlowDave wrote: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.

WildBill wrote:

SlowDave wrote: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.

That seems perfectly logical to me. If you're allowed to carry a gun and choose not to, and you're shot, you should be responsible for your inability to defend yourself. But not for the actions of the shooter.

After the VA Tech shooting, the university lost an $8 million suit and the state of Virginia settled for $11 million. So the awareness of some culpability is building. Cinemark is now being sued for the shootings in Colorado. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/wak ... 30871.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem I see with blaming a facility that doesn't allow weapons is that they plainly told you that and you entered anyway. ISTM that you assumed your own risk at that point. I can certainly see the defendant's lawyers making that argument and the courts looking favorably at it.

Personally, I don't go to movie theaters, so I don't have to deal with that issue.

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.