January 5th, 2008 09:18 PM
reverse liability scenario question??????
I know this is cannon fodder for lawyers but heres a thought to ponder.....
Lets say a person carries a gun 24/7 and obviously has assumed responsibilty for his/her own safety..They board a train, or go to work or somewhere in a place where guns are NOT allowed by company policy(not written law persay)..If the SHTF and you are killed or injured would they not assume a certain amount of liability by NOT allowing you to carry??...If a company REQUIRES you to carry they assume a % of liability..THEREFOR...shouldn't a company with a policy to NOT allow you to carry assumer a % of liability should you be harmed because THEY would not let you assume the role of protecting yourself?.. ...Thoughts on this one? I know there is no real answer unless a judge hears it but it makes good thought provoking conversation!
January 5th, 2008 09:23 PM
In Virginia I can sue you for not greeting me properly in the morning, if I can find a lawyer to take the case and file the paperwork. Now winning is an entirely different scenario.
It would likely come down to whether or not the company could reasonably believe/expect that an attack would occur or in the case of an employee going off the deep end, if they knew that employee had those issues and capabilities.
I would imagine you would lose, which is why with some of the shootings we have seen we haven't heard about anyone winning such a case.
Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.
January 5th, 2008 09:30 PM
it wouldnt necessarily have to be an employee..just a BG in general ...With the rapidly growing number of folks that carry the tide might be changing..Folks gettin tired of being shot, robbed and stabbed and taking responsibility for their own safety. So NOT allowing someone to carry might be looked at as the assumption THEY are responsible for your safety..after all most companies have locks on doors, key swipe passes for employees only, buzzers to let employees only isn etc etc...there for they KNOW there is a potential threat..Then they decide to NOT allow you to protect yourself...I know I know..lol you can sue but can you win..lol
January 5th, 2008 09:42 PM
I got this info from another forum. This is being proposed in Arizona.
The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act of 2008
Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such
conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual's right
or ability to self defense.
REFERENCE TITLE: Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act
State of Arizona
Second Regular Session
__.B. _____ Introduced by ________________________
AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
adding new section 13-3119:
A.R.S. §13-3119. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.
A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a person who is a member of a minority as federally defined, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.
B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12 (Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14 (Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Trespass and Burglary), Chapter 17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related Offenses), Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order) and Chapter 36 (Family Offenses).
C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to keep arms or to bear arms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.
To close for missiles, switching to guns.
January 5th, 2008 09:52 PM
There is actually a book on this very subject. Unfortunately, the book supports your position and the law (so far) generally does not.
Originally Posted by ridgerunnr
Guns in the Workplace
It's an OK read and covers most of the angles one could use to argue such a case.
"Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington
By cobrar97 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 02:25 AM
By joetucker1029 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: January 12th, 2008, 06:24 PM
By wendywc in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: September 13th, 2007, 01:40 PM
By Deke45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: May 21st, 2005, 07:13 AM
Search tags for this page
criminal liability scenarios
gun free zones a liability
how to reverse a liability
how to reverse liability
reverse assumption of liability
reverse liability claim
reverse liability coverage
reverse of liability
reversing a liability
reversing a scenerio on someone
to reverse a liability
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors