One of my bosses just asked me to procure 200 "No Guns Allowed" signs for our stores.

[Rabbitcreekok]

What they don't realize is that it works both ways. If you are injured in a robbery or worse yet, a mass shooting, they can be sued for not allowing you to carry the gun you are legally allowed to carry and not having it to protect yourself.

Never heard of this happening... example?

Sorry I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the Insurance Companies. They could end up with a big payout if the injured party sued the business for not allowing the injured party to carry their gun on the premises and were injured. Not saying it has happened but it certainly could. You can sue anybody for anything---and win. Sometimes.

 

[Werewolf]

Sorry I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the Insurance Companies. They could end up with a big payout if the injured party sued the business for not allowing the injured party to carry their gun on the premises and were injured. Not saying it has happened but it certainly could. You can sue anybody for anything---and win. Sometimes.

That scenario has been discussed many times on many different gun forums. In all the threads I've read over the years concerning the scenario wher a business would be held liable for a person with a CCW who voluntarily disarmed themselves and chose to enter the business and got shot by a bad guy no one has ever been able to cite a real life example. Various legal beagle types have stated that the business would not be held liable except under the most egregious of circumstances and none could even imagine a set that would apply.

It all boils down to you entered voluntarily, you disarmed voluntarily and by doing so assumed the risk of those actions thus removing liability from the business or other arguments to that effect.

Just sayin'...

I'd love to see a case where a business is held liable but ain't gonna hold my breath waitin' for it to happen.

 

[Rabbitcreekok]

That scenario has been discussed many times on many different gun forums. In all the threads I've read over the years concerning the scenario wher a business would be held liable for a person with a CCW who voluntarily disarmed themselves and chose to enter the business and got shot by a bad guy no one has ever been able to cite a real life example. Various legal beagle types have stated that the business would not be held liable except under the most egregious of circumstances and none could even imagine a set that would apply.

It all boils down to you entered voluntarily, you disarmed voluntarily and by doing so assumed the risk of those actions thus removing liability from the business or other arguments to that effect.

Just sayin'...

I'd love to see a case where a business is held liable but ain't gonna hold my breath waitin' for it to happen.

I just don't want to be the trial case.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I'd love to see a case where a business is held liable but ain't gonna hold my breath waitin' for it to happen.

Not directly related... but... Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp., 439 F. 2d 477 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit (1970) held that a landlord has a duty to provide security for tenants from reasonably foreseeable crime. Tough argument for a lawyer to make about a convenient store or supermarket, and a tough connection to make, but possible.

From Banks v. Hyatt Corp., 722 F. 2d 214 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (1984):

The owner or operator of a business owes a duty to invitees to exercise reasonable care to protect them from injury. This duty does not extend, however, to unforeseeable or unanticipated criminal acts by an independent third person. "Only when the owner or management of a business has knowledge, or can be imputed with knowledge, of a third person's intended criminal conduct which is about to occur, and which is within the power of the owner or management to protect against, does such a duty towards a guest arise."​

Here's one from Oklahoma. McClure v. Group K Enterprises, Inc., 1999 OK CIV APP 29, 977 P.2d 1148. Plaintiff was struck on the dance floor with a beer bottle. The Court found that the defendant had not provided adequate security to enforce their rules on the premises.

And this probably the end-all-be-all (for now, at least):

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344:

[a] possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons . . ., and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to

(a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or

(b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.​

and comment f to the above:

Since the possessor is not an insurer of the visitor's safety, he is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care until he knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring or are about to occur. He may, however, know or have reason to know, from past experience, that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons in general which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor, even though he has no reason to expect it on the part of any particular individual. If the place or character of his business, or his past experience, is such that he should reasonably anticipate careless or criminal conduct on the part of third persons, either generally or at some particular time, he may be under a duty to take precautions against it, and to provide a reasonably sufficient number of servants to afford a reasonable protection.​

 

[Burk Cornelius]

Good stuff NASCAR boy.

"(b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it."

So the sign should say "if you come in here you may get shot"?

 

[vvvvvvv]

So the sign should say "if you come in here you may get shot"?

Only if there's a consistent history of shootings at or near the premises that pose a reasonably immediate threat to patrons.

 

[GForce89]

I just laugh as i walk in the door of businesses with no gun signs. Same as all my buddies. Do you really think that if you end up shooting someone in self defense of you and the people in the business the cops are going to bust you? (With exception to people like Ersland). I say no, the police will probably determine it a good shooting and the business owner will not even think about pressing charges. Even if they do, this is America. With the right amount of $$$ you can buy your way out of anything.