Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
One of my bosses just asked me to procure 200 "No Guns Allowed" signs for our stores.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1508455" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>Not directly related... but... <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17169342240227337222" target="_blank"><em>Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.</em>, 439 F. 2d 477 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit (1970)</a> 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.</p><p></p><p>From <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=384840554542399280" target="_blank"><em>Banks v. Hyatt Corp.</em>, 722 F. 2d 214 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (1984)</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">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."</p><p></p><p>Here's one from Oklahoma. <a href="http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=60785" target="_blank"><em>McClure v. Group K Enterprises, Inc.</em>, 1999 OK CIV APP 29, 977 P.2d 1148</a>. 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.</p><p></p><p>And this probably the end-all-be-all (for now, at least):</p><p></p><p>Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">[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</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.</p><p></p><p>and comment f to the above:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1508455, member: 5151"] Not directly related... but... [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17169342240227337222"][I]Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.[/I], 439 F. 2d 477 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit (1970)[/URL] 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 [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=384840554542399280"][I]Banks v. Hyatt Corp.[/I], 722 F. 2d 214 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (1984)[/URL]: [indent]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."[/indent] Here's one from Oklahoma. [URL="http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=60785"][I]McClure v. Group K Enterprises, Inc.[/I], 1999 OK CIV APP 29, 977 P.2d 1148[/URL]. 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: [indent][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.[/indent] and comment f to the above: [indent]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.[/indent] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
One of my bosses just asked me to procure 200 "No Guns Allowed" signs for our stores.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom