Liability

[fhqwhgads]

Here's a thought that has crossed my mind.

You are a law-abiding, CCW citizen. You are visiting a location, business, etc. where CCW is not allowed by the owner (signage or whatever). BG enters with gun and somewhere in the ensuing mess shoots you. Had you been in possesion of your weapon, you could have defended yourself.

Can you, as a valid CCW holder, hold the locations owner liable for your injuries since they infringed on your right to bear arms? The authorities recognize your right to carry through the CCW process, so I would think anyone denying that privilege could be held responsible for any ensuing injuries.

Just a thought. What are your inputs?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[MattInFla]

I think it would depend heavily on where you were - in a heavily pro-gun locality, you might have a shot.

In a more anti-gun, sheeple jurisdiction, you'd lose.

Just my thoughts.

Matt

[AirForceShooter]

Yes.
The owner of any business is required to ensure your safety.
That's why banks just tell the robbers "Take the money and just go"
Sure his butt of if you have a ccw or not.

AFS

[MattInFla]

Good point - irrespective of the CCW issue, the business owner has a duty to provide a safe environment for you, his business invitee.

I was focusing on the "If he hadn't disarmed me" aspect.

Matt

[PapaScout]

Hypothetically, through freedom of choice, you agreed to disarm so that you might patronize this establishment.

Was the benefit of shopping worth the risk of being assaulted?

[rocky]

maybe a winnable argument in civil court.

[fhqwhgads]

Hypothetically, through freedom of choice, you agreed to disarm so that you might patronize this establishment.

Was the benefit of shopping worth the risk of being assaulted?

Let's say you have no choice but to enter this location, as in you're required to do business there through your job or something. Not MY choice to disarm. It's been forced on me, which means my 2nd amendment rights have been violated.

Considering today's tort-happy society, and the fact that I'm trying to find a list of pro-carry lawyers in my area should I ever need one, this topic just happened to cross my mind.

[P95Carry]

I think if you were under business obligation to enter the premises and required to be unarmed, then just maybe it could be fought regarding you receiving no protection.

Bottom line tho anyways I suspect - long, long case and mega bucks of money to run it!

[Ti Carry]

You can sue anybody for just about anything so the answer is yes you can sue the business owner, winning the case is a different matter but your chances are very high IMO that you would win the case if you are injured for sure. The catch on your recent post though is you are now saying if you had to go for work or something. Well this get's a bit more complicated if your employer does not allow you to carry a firearm while on the clock with them (and you accept that and do not carry) entering the store would be the choice you made when accepting the position, no company CCW policy no problem.

But as I said you can sue anybody for just about anything and then with this you could sue both your employer for and the business owner but it is hard to say where either case would go as it is impossible to predict the outcome. You might win, you might not but atleast you gave it a shot and might change the business owner as well as the employers policies about this.

I DO NOT PATRONIZE ANY BUSINESS THAT IS POSTED, EVER. In Missouri it doesn't matter if a business is posted or not, if it is not a forbiden place by state law you may enter anyway but will have to leave if discovered carrying and I will never be discovered, but again I don't have to worry about that because I will never be caught in a posted establishment.

I always drop off a No Gun's = No Money flyer to every posted place I come across.


Ti.

[97Octane]

Can you, as a valid CCW holder, hold the locations owner liable for your injuries since they infringed on your right to bear arms? The authorities recognize your right to carry through the CCW process, so I would think anyone denying that privilege could be held responsible for any ensuing injuries.

You speak about "infringed" right to bear arms. But the business owner has rights too that must be as protected as yours. I am all for business owners who are anti-gun to not allow weapons on their private property. I dont have to do business with them... but they have private property rights. Thats a very beautiful thing actually.

You have the right to smoke... but you do not have the right to smoke in my house... or my car etc... same thing. Your right is protected, but so is the business owners.

I do not believe you would have a case in court. The only person wrong in this case is the BG and he/she alone bears all liability. The business owner didnt shoot you, nor did he allow you to be shot. You at that point, are on his turf... in "his house" if you will. Do not enter if you dont like the house rules. Its not his liability for him to excersize his private property rights. Hes misguided... but in America we are all free until you cross over someone elses fence.

[97Octane]

the business owner has a duty to provide a safe environment for you, his business invitee.

Matt

The business owner has a duty to provide a safe environment... meaning, he cant have toxic chemicals all about, or dangerous objects in walking paths... rails on stairs/steps etc.... Thats a safe environment. A business owners duty to provide a safe environment for you should not include making sure an armed bandito doesnt storm the joint and blast everyone in his way. How in the world do you guard against that? Even if you were armed? Thats not the safe environment that most people have in mind. If thats the case... every biker bar in middle america would get sued everytime some biker broke a beer bottle over the counter and slashed up everyone with it. His the slashers fault... not the bar owner because he "Allowed Glass" in his bar, and I was subsequently cut with it.

[Captain Crunch]

The owner of any business is required to ensure your safety.

If by "ensure" you mean "guarantee", then this is not true. A business owner is only required to take reasonable care to provide for the safety of persons on his property. He is not required to guarantee that you are safe. That's an unreasonable standard.

The business owner in this case met the standard of reasonable care by posting his property.

[rstickle]

The reason that the owner DOESN'T want you to carry is probably for liability....... His. You have to remember, the liability thing runs both ways.

[denverd0n]

The owner has no obligation to guarantee your safety and is not liable for any injury you suffer, unless it is due to his negligence. As mentioned above, he is only obligated to take reasonable precautions. What's more, when the law specifically says that business owners have a right to prohibit carry on their premises, you're going to have a hard time proving that he was negligent or unreasonable simply because he exercised that right.

Anybody can sue anybody, but I doubt you'd win this one. If anyone can find a state where such a case has been tried, and the CCW holder won, let me know because I want to move there!

[F350]

I think I have heard about such a case; argued on the basis of "implied liability", by denying your ability to defend yourself he has taken on the liability to protect you. I am at work and don't have the ability to search it out but I think the NRA is involved in the case.

I have a buddy who's family owns a hardware store ask me how I felt about it about a year ago, I think he is opposed to the law suit, but the door to the store has a computer printed sign that reads....

ALL FIREARMS WELCOME

If you do not have a firearm feel free to buy one before you leave