Vehicle and guns

[Ericstac]

I have a possible situation that could arise in the near future and I want to get some input on it. I know my first gut response but I want to see if I'm going overboard or not.


I have a few vehicles under my name. I also have a couple that are under my business name with me as a personal consigner. If someone drives my business car and has a gun in the car, either glove box, or console or something, and gets pulled over is there a situation where I could be held responsible? Say the driver says its not their gun or something. What if the driver has been drinking? Any scenario at all?

I can prove the gun is the driver with photos.

[flechero]

If it really is your gun then i think there could be an issue with unsecured access if the person was not legal to have it. (that's a common sense answer, not a legal opinion.) I'm sure someone will be along shortly with statutes to answer

Better answer, IMO, is not to let the person(s) in question drive your vehicles. And if they are employees then you might have some tough decisions ahead.

[RX8er]

Is it your gun or one of your employees?

If it is their's then I don't think you have much to worry about. No ocifer, I swear that is not my bag of dope. My buddy was in the car the other day and left it stashed in here.... This hasn't worked for the cops in the past. So, I don't think it would work with someone trying to pawn their gun off as yours.

If it is your gun then take it with you and don't leave it in the car and let someone have access to it. I could easily see you being sued down the line for someone else making a bad decision and now you are involved because it was your gun. Plus, someone that is legal to posses a gun today might not be legal next week. I wouldn't want that riding on my shoulders.

Just my $.02

[Ericstac]

Sorry it is their gun not mine.

[JP171]

I have a possible situation that could arise in the near future and I want to get some input on it. I know my first gut response but I want to see if I'm going overboard or not.


I have a few vehicles under my name. I also have a couple that are under my business name with me as a personal consigner. If someone drives my business car and has a gun in the car, either glove box, or console or something, and gets pulled over is there a situation where I could be held responsible? Say the driver says its not their gun or something. What if the driver has been drinking? Any scenario at all?

I can prove the gun is the driver with photos.

ok so lets take this logically, if someone is using your vehicle, business or personal and they are stopped for anything you are not responsible, with the exception of no insurance, expired tags and inspection, they will still get the ticket. if the officer finds a weapon, its not a big deal unless they are legally not allowed but its not your resposibility it will be their butt in the line no matter what they say. so all those above me that are giving alot of opinions about all kinds of stuff you can ignore. you are not liable nor responsible for what someone does that is operating a vehicle that you or your company owns. there are a few exceptions but not significant for this question.

[Ericstac]

^ thanks.

[Jumping Frog]

ok so lets take this logically, if someone is using your vehicle, business or personal and they are stopped for anything you are not responsible, with the exception of no insurance, expired tags and inspection, they will still get the ticket. if the officer finds a weapon, its not a big deal unless they are legally not allowed but its not your responsibility it will be their butt in the line no matter what they say. so all those above me that are giving a lot of opinions about all kinds of stuff you can ignore. you are not liable nor responsible for what someone does that is operating a vehicle that you or your company owns. there are a few exceptions but not significant for this question.

I agree with most of what you say for his liability for someone simply possessing a handgun in his vehicle.

However, here is the catch: if an employee is in the car owned by the business and misuses the handgun: road rage, wrongful shooting, or similar.

Since the OP obviously knows the employee has a handgun, the employer can be sued for negligent entrustment, with the claim that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment or acting as an agent of the employer. The claim would assert a failure to supervise the employee in his harmful act.

If it was my business, I would notify each employee in writing that they could not possess a handgun in company-owned vehicles, using the language, "This document confirms our verbal conversation where you were notified . . . .".

I don't have a problem with an employee carrying a gun for which he is personally liable, but I do have a problem as an employer putting myself into a situation where my business is liable for the employee carrying a gun. Of course, I handle risk management for our company, so I see the horror stories . . . .

[JP171]

ok so lets take this logically, if someone is using your vehicle, business or personal and they are stopped for anything you are not responsible, with the exception of no insurance, expired tags and inspection, they will still get the ticket. if the officer finds a weapon, its not a big deal unless they are legally not allowed but its not your responsibility it will be their butt in the line no matter what they say. so all those above me that are giving a lot of opinions about all kinds of stuff you can ignore. you are not liable nor responsible for what someone does that is operating a vehicle that you or your company owns. there are a few exceptions but not significant for this question.

I agree with most of what you say for his liability for someone simply possessing a handgun in his vehicle.

However, here is the catch: if an employee is in the car owned by the business and misuses the handgun: road rage, wrongful shooting, or similar.

Since the OP obviously knows the employee has a handgun, the employer can be sued for negligent entrustment, with the claim that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment or acting as an agent of the employer. The claim would assert a failure to supervise the employee in his harmful act.

If it was my business, I would notify each employee in writing that they could not possess a handgun in company-owned vehicles, using the language, "This document confirms our verbal conversation where you were notified . . . .".

I don't have a problem with an employee carrying a gun for which he is personally liable, but I do have a problem as an employer putting myself into a situation where my business is liable for the employee carrying a gun. Of course, I handle risk management for our company, so I see the horror stories . . . .

not to disagree totally, yes you can be sued for anything, however negligent entrustment seems to imply that the employer didn't exercise due dillegence, he would have to have ignored somthing critical to the act, IE no drivers license, not qualified to operate the type of equipment the actor was operating and the company knew and disregarded, then to prove negligence you have to prove that the company even had a duty to act, because an employee has a CHL in a vehicle the company doesn't have a provable duty to act, so there cannot be negligence in the action of the company due to the company not being legally required to ascertain the presence of a weapon. yes I know this is such a grey area and has no established case law, but there have been a large number of cases of a similar type that I really don't believe that with a good lawyer it will hold anything let alone water

[tommyg]

I'm no Lawyer but it seems to me that a no guns policy will be some protection..If you want your employees to carry
in company vehicles just be sure you don't catch them. If you get in a position where you have to catch them
just give the employee a mild warning or some kind of mild action that won't be a big deal like write the employee
up and lose the paper work.

I was building manager in a warehouse in New Hampshire I knew some of the employes had guns no
employee was ever caught with a gun. I never was very good at finding employee guns.

[Jumping Frog]

Jmra, you have no idea how many times I've been sued for negligent entrustment. In fact, the latest set of papers arrived certified mail on Friday. Yeah, I haven't lost many, but I have had to defend and there are quite a few we decided were more cost effective to settle. If a business can sidestep that circus by instituting a simple policy of no firearm in company vehicles, well frankly it is a no brainer.

[jmra]

Jmra, you have no idea how many times I've been sued for negligent entrustment. In fact, the latest set of papers arrived certified mail on Friday. Yeah, I haven't lost many, but I have had to defend and there are quite a few we decided were more cost effective to settle. If a business can sidestep that circus by instituting a simple policy of no firearm in company vehicles, well frankly it is a no brainer.

I misread the OP - thought he meant that he was leaving his guns in the cars. Deleted my post after rereading the OP.

[RottenApple]

Jmra, you have no idea how many times I've been sued for negligent entrustment. In fact, the latest set of papers arrived certified mail on Friday. Yeah, I haven't lost many, but I have had to defend and there are quite a few we decided were more cost effective to settle. If a business can sidestep that circus by instituting a simple policy of no firearm in company vehicles, well frankly it is a no brainer.

Except that even a "no firearms" policy doesn't stop you from getting sued if your employee violates it. Just look at the current Kroger case.

[Jumping Frog]

Except that even a "no firearms" policy doesn't stop you from getting sued if your employee violates it. Just look at the current Kroger case.

No, but I'd rather get rid of the case via summary judgment instead of having to go to trial. If an employee is violating clear company policy, I haven't entrusted him to perform those actions.

[RottenApple]

Except that even a "no firearms" policy doesn't stop you from getting sued if your employee violates it. Just look at the current Kroger case.

No, but I'd rather get rid of the case via summary judgment instead of having to go to trial. If an employee is violating clear company policy, I haven't entrusted him to perform those actions.

And yet the Kroger case hasn't been thrown out because it is alleged that Kroger didn't do enough to enforce their no firearms policy. So it seems to me that you can be sued regardless.

[03Lightningrocks]

Jmra, you have no idea how many times I've been sued for negligent entrustment. In fact, the latest set of papers arrived certified mail on Friday. Yeah, I haven't lost many, but I have had to defend and there are quite a few we decided were more cost effective to settle. If a business can sidestep that circus by instituting a simple policy of no firearm in company vehicles, well frankly it is a no brainer.

I apologize if my question is too personal but I have to ask what kind of business you own that has been on the bd end of so many law suites. I have owned a business for twelve years and was the primary in a previous business for 25 years and we were only involved in one case and it had nothing to do with negligent entrustment. That is crazy! I hope you have some good insurance and I would hate to pay the premiums on it.