Senerio: Shooter in the workplace

[mastercapt]

As honest employee's, our workplaces forbid carry on the premisis.
So, given a situation which happened in Orlando last Friday, I am proposing a scenario. The company obviously banned weapons on premisis. The shooter , who was a former disgruntled employee, opened fire and shot 6 people, and 1 died. If I was one of the employees, could I sue the employer on the basis of being a CWP holder, I may have been able to stop the perp? On the basis of restricting the ability to defend myself? Or something?
Anybody have knowledge of that being done somewhere else?
That would be an interesting case.......
Any Lawyers out there for comment?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Cycler]

You can sue for pretty much anything you want, but it might get thrown out.

I say go for it. Many will say that it's a property owner's right to ban stuff on their property, but it's also your right to sue them for whatever the heck you want. You could argue that you were happy to leave your gun out in the car per your employer's demands but by doing so he took upon the obligation to ensure your safety, expressed or otherwise, which he did not.

I believe that most owners/law departments of giant faceless megacorporations choose to ban firearms because they think it will be a lower liability in terms of potential payout & insurance. If they got sued a couple of times, even if they won the first few cases it might begin to sway opinion and get the law depts. to think a little deeper about it.

[fatcat]

That's a very good question.

I think a win or loss (like most cases) would depend on the judge it was put in front of. I think if you found a pro 2A judge it would not only go through but probably result in a victory for us all. And of course the plaintiff also.

But if it got in front of a an anti-sheep it would be interesting...... A good lawyer should be able to make the case for a 2A violation. Assuming you were licensed to carry anywhere in the state, their private property rules are in violation of your inalienable rights.

Now of course the defending lawyer would argue that it is their right to do what they want on their property. And that would carry some weight.

However in general property rights are state laws, and the 2A is a little bit beefier than that......I think it would be very hard for a judge to rule against you, because the backlash would be heavy. I'm not sure a judge can rule against the constitution even in civil suits......

Dunno I'm no judge..... But its a great question and would be a good topic for a TV show.

[horse2water]

Essentially you have a choice to not work there if you don't like the rules. By continuing your employment, you acknowledge the rule and accept the risk.
I believe that's how the courts would interpret it. Just my opinion though.

[jem102]

When I had my own business my lawyer told me that when an employer limits the employee from self defense the employer becomes responsible for their safety by the "reasonable man" rule. Meaning they must be able to demonstrate they took the precautions a "reasonable man" would have taken to keep the work place safe.
As Cycler has stated the large companies run it strictly by the numbers their consultants and lawyers offer up so your a$$ is expendable for the greater good. And depending on the size of the company this would most likely be seen as "reasonable" in court.
I work for a company that has 70,000+ employees. I have always told my wife if anything happens they will come to you with an offer...don't take it...triple it and tell them you need the check in ten business days or you will let the court settle it.

[sgb]

A better option is to stick a S&W 442 in a pocket holster, stick it in your pocket and don't tell anyone you have it.

[TX-JB]

When I had my own business my lawyer told me that when an employer limits the employee from self defense the employer becomes responsible for their safety by the "reasonable man" rule. Meaning they must be able to demonstrate they took the precautions a "reasonable man" would have taken to keep the work place safe.

Unfortunately, what we think the "reasonable man" rule should mean, is probably not what the majority of the world thinks the "reasonable man" rule means.

For example, my employer has security officers stationed at all entrances, and we all have ID badges that must be used to unlock the doors. That would meet the definition of the "reasonable man" rule, to the majority of the population. We all know that unarmed security officers will not stop someone from gaining access to our building, if they want in...

[FLSquirrelHunter]

I think that if the company forbids you to protect yourself, they assume a responsibility to protect you. The guy didn't drive a truck through a locked gate, he just walked in.

You would have to prove that you had damages as a result of the incident (emotional distress at a minimum) and should include in your action that not only should you be reimbursed, you should also now be allowed to carry at work.

It would be cheaper for a smart company to buy liability insurance for an open carry environment than to pay claims for denying your RKBA.

[packinnova]

You "can" as in you have the ability to, sue just about anyone for just about anything these days. That doesn't necessarily mean you should.

Fact of the matter is that you're not a slave to your employer and you DO HAVE A CHOICE as to whether or not you work there, contrary to everyone's poor woe is me argument of that being the only place you could find work, family to support, etc... All those arguments are red-herrings so to speak. You ultimately are responsible for you.

If you are shot or injured in a workplace by a BG after having CHOSEN to work for said employer knowing full well the rules, and disregarding your own safety anyway...that's between you and the BG. It has nothing to do with your employer or their rules.

[FLSquirrelHunter]

If you are shot or injured in a workplace by a BG after having CHOSEN to work for said employer knowing full well the rules, and disregarding your own safety anyway...that's between you and the BG. It has nothing to do with your employer or their rules.

Don't think any judge agree that accepting an offer of employment means you chose to work at a place where you knew you stood a good chance of being shot. Accepting a job as stunt driver is not the same as being a paper shuffler.

[tmizzi]

Not a chance.

[ccw9mm]

If I was one of the employees, could I sue the employer on the basis of being a CWP holder, I may have been able to stop the perp? On the basis of restricting the ability to defend myself? Or something?

Absolutely.

Of course, that's where it ends. You'd be out $thousands, and you'd get nowhere but fired.

To-date, I know of not one single court ruling that has sided with sanity and common sense, supporting the idea that forcible disarmament directly leads to the a person's lack of ability to defend against violent attack, and that a company's policy dictating this action is directly responsible for that inability. Seems pretty clear, to me. Though, to-date not a single judge or jury has sided with that concept. Not one. Pathetic, really.

[Cycler]

Fact of the matter is that you're not a slave to your employer and you DO HAVE A CHOICE as to whether or not you work there, contrary to everyone's poor woe is me argument of that being the only place you could find work, family to support, etc... All those arguments are red-herrings so to speak. You ultimately are responsible for you.

Yea, and the employer has a choice too and they're not slaves to their insurance companies and DO HAVE A CHOICE as to whether or not to buy said insurance (or set policy) contrary to every poor employers' woe is me I can't afford the overhead & liability argument. If they choose to disarm you, they're obligated to protect you. If they fail to, they deserve to be sued.

[retsupt99]

Not a chance.

i agree, and before that...pigs will fly!

[Majorlk]

Geez, there must be about a dozen threads on this very same subject, already.