I saw him chasing an ambulance down the street.
That must have been one of his secretaries. He was spotted catching a flight to Connecticut.
I saw him chasing an ambulance down the street.
I f someone is on a company's property and the injured by, let's say a broken toilet, they are liable. Why wouldn't they be if you are injured on their property by a bullet?
I f someone is on a company's property and the injured by, let's say a broken toilet, they are liable. Why wouldn't they be if you are injured on their property by a bullet?
Well then it would have to be the property owner's bullet that injured them. This is more about the property owner's failure to provide a deterrent. If a woman is mugged in a dark parking lot, the lot owner might be successfully sued for failure to provide adequate security lighting, to deter muggers. If a company prohibits self-defense items on their property, but then fails to provide security officers armed with self-defense items or methods to detect unauthorized carry of weapons, they are not backing up their policies with ethical actions.
Not totally directly, but here's one from Pennsylvania in 1984 regarding the responsibility of a property owner to take measures to provide security for defenseless patrons. In this case, it was found that a property owner could assume INCREASED liability in certain circumstances as a result of providing additional security measures. Feld v. Merriam, 485 A. 2d 742 - Pa: Supreme Court 1984
So let me play devil's advocate, if your armed and hit by that bullet are they no longer liable?
That's not entirely set in stone. See the following from a previous thread on the subject:
Originally Posted by Veggie Meat
Not totally directly, but here's one from Pennsylvania in 1984 regarding the responsibility of a property owner to take measures to provide security for defenseless patrons. In this case, it was found that a property owner could assume INCREASED liability in certain circumstances as a result of providing additional security measures. Feld v. Merriam, 485 A. 2d 742 - Pa: Supreme Court 1984
So essentially, the property owner could assume increased liability by posting the property as weapons prohibited, as an additional security measure?
Where is JB when you need him?
Probably staring at the Obama poster on his ceiling.
Enter your email address to join: