Private Property, CCW, and Civil Liability

[BaltimoreBoy]

Looking over some threads here it seems that there is as yet no case law related to a business being successfully sued for prohibiting concealed carry.

(Please jump in and correct me if I am wrong there.)

What about the reverse of that situation?

Has a business ever been sued successfully for ALLOWING lawful concealed carry?

 

[Husker_Fan]

I can't answer your question, but I would point out that in tort law, there is a principle called "assumption of risk." Basically, if you know of the risks and proceed in light of them and are foreseably hurt, you loose if you sue.

If private property is posted, and you decide to not carry there, the owner will likely argue that you assumed the risk of injury resulting from not being able to defend yourself with a firearm.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

How would tort law work in the case of school gun free zones where the children are compelled to attend?

Frankly, I think that people supporting disarming victims should be held liable for any injury that might have been avoided with using a firearm for self defense.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I know of no businesses that have been sued for allowing carry.

Frankly, I think that people supporting disarming victims should be held liable for any injury that might have been avoided with using a firearm for self defense.

So now we are at a level of persecution for a belief. If people support a given view, you want them liable for it? So you are okay with being liable for people harmed by gunfire?

That is a mighty slippery slope.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Not for a belief, but where being directly involved in the restriction.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Not for a belief, but where being directly involved in the restriction.

LOL, above you clearly stated that you wanted anybody simply supporting the position to be responsible to be held liable if injuries might have been avoided...

Of course the counter argument to that would be that the parties involved NOT be held responsible if any other means or method might have resulted in the party not being injured.

The problem with "might" is that there is no real burden of proof. Everybody and their dog would be suing because if something went wrong even though they don't even carry a gun. Of course, they would argue that they would carry a gun 24/7, but the Quick-E-Mart doesn't allow it and so they never even bothered to get a license, but that they might have gotten a license...

 

[Spats McGee]

Let's not forget the doctrines of intervening and superseding causation. Basically, if there is some event that intervenes between the alleged wrong and the injury, or supersedes it, then the defendant will argue that it is an intervening or superseding proximate cause.

Example: Bub's Burgers allows concealed carry. Pete Pistolero CCs his pistol into Bub's Burgers. He's having lunch with his buddy, Alan Antigun. Pete decides to show Alan his pistol, but fumbles on the draw, has a negligent discharge, and shoots Alan. Then Alan sues Bub's (because Bub's has insurance and Pete spent all his money on guns and ammo), alleging that Bub's was negligent in allowing CC, causing him (Alan) to get shot. Bub's will argue that Pete's actions in trying to draw his pistol in the absence of any immediate threat, was negligent. Bub's will claim that Pete's actions constitute an intervening and superseding causation, such that even if Bub's was negligent in allowing CC, the real proximate cause of Alan's injury lies with Pete.

Make sense?

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

I apologize for not providing coherent, concise, precise airtight verbiage.

I do believe that they need to be held responsible for denying anyone self defense. Suzanna Gratia Hupp comes to mind.

Particularly when they are zero tolerance and have Barney Fife on patrol.

There are other factors, as well. There may not be anyone amongst the victims that wanted to take the responsibility of self defense. The gun free zone is then a non issue.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I do believe that they need to be held responsible for denying anyone self defense. Suzanna Gratia Hupp comes to mind....

What a lousy example. Luby's Cafeteria had nothing to do with her not having a gun in the restaurant. The law required her to leave her gun in her car. At the time, people could not lawfully have a loaded gun in public (except in one's car when traveling).

...I think that people supporting disarming victims should be held liable for any injury that might have been avoided with using a firearm for self defense...

Well whatever you think the law should be, that is not what the law is.

A fundamental principle in the law of liability is causation. In order to hold someone liable for an injury you suffer, you must first be able to establish that but for his particular action, you would not have suffered the injury.

So you now claim that if you had been lawfully able to carry a gun, you would have been able to successfully, under the exact circumstances of your particular incident, defend yourself and avoid injury. That can be a pretty tall order. For example, could you prove to the satisfaction of a jury that had you been able to lawfully carry a gun, you would have been carrying it at the particular time? Could you show to the satisfaction of a jury that you had the level of training and skill necessary to effectively use your gun under the exact circumstances of your incident? Could you show to the satisfaction of a jury that you would have used your gun effectively enough to prevail and escape injury? Remember, sometimes good guys fighting back still get hurt, and sometimes good guys lose.

Basically, what you could have been able to do under particular circumstances is too vague and speculative.

 

[Kleanbore]

Frank beat me to it, on all counts.

 

[Spats McGee]

I apologize for not providing coherent, concise, precise airtight verbiage.

Welcome to the Legal forum, where coherent, concise, and precise (if not airtight) verbiage is necessary.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Suzanna Gratia Hupp expressed a different view. But that is a situation where defense was denied.

Being in a room with the victims facing the shooter waiting for their turn to be slaughtered is not a confusing situation. Dropping behind cover and firing back takes minimal training.

Assuming being able to handle adrenaline, I personally would have no problem demonstrating competence beyond that level. There are too many factors at play to say where that would go.

Whether this would meet the test, I don't know.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Suzanna Gratia Hupp expressed a different view. But that is a situation where defense was denied....

I guess you still don't understand why your reference to Ms. Hupp is inapposite. She wasn't denied the ability to carry her gun into the restaurant by the management of Luby's Cafeteria. Luby's Cafeteria did not have a "no guns" policy. Rather, it would have been illegal at the time for her to have removed her loaded gun from her car.

...Assuming being able to handle adrenaline, I personally would have no problem demonstrating competence beyond that level....

To yourself? Perhaps. To a jury? Who knows.

In any case, the law is not as you would like it to be. Certainly notwithstanding a fair number of rampage killings in various "no guns" locations, no on apparently is aware a any successful lawsuit against a property owner or business over a "no guns" policy.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Suzanna Gratia Hupp expressed a different view. But that is a situation where defense was denied.

Sure enough, but Suzanna Gratia Hupp, even as a State Representative, never tried to take away the rights of property owners and she never advocated suing the state for her losses.

 

[oneounceload]

I do believe that they need to be held responsible for denying anyone self defense. Suzanna Gratia Hupp comes to mind.

Why? YOU have the choice NOT to be somewhere where your view is unsupported.

 

[steve4102]

Here is an interesting read by The WI Lawyer.

http://www.wisbar.org/newspublicati...article.aspx?Volume=85&Issue=7&ArticleID=8710

Scroll down to Employer and Employee Liability, for some examples that you guys might find relevant to this discussion.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Here is an interesting read by The WI Lawyer....

Yes, and, especially with regard to employer liability, it is based on (1) specific provisions of Wisconsin statute and case law; and/or (2) speculation.