Jared backs up their anti CHL policy with facts

[CWOOD]

Here is a link to the mentioned Attorney General opinion regarding liability.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opi ... dm0363.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't see any section that said that the business is assigned liability if a CHL'er is injured while forced ot disarm.

Pleae show me the error of my ways.

Carl

[CrimsonSoul]

Yeah according to that the business owner avoids liability by posting a 30.06

"Furthermore, we believe that a trier of fact would likely conclude that the business owner or operator had taken reasonable steps to prevent the injury by posting the sign prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons on the premises."

[bdickens]

So what exactly are these "facts" with which Jared backs up their victim disarmament policy? I'm still waiting.

[mrvmax]

So what exactly are these "facts" with which Jared backs up their victim disarmament policy? I'm still waiting.

I was just joking, they had nothing to base it on except fear.

[bdickens]

I kind of figured that.

[TxFig]

I would like to get a nicely printed-out copy of that Atty General ruling in 1-inch contrasting letters in both English and Spanish and affix it next to each and every 30.06 sign that I come across.

Or even on wallet-size business card to hand to the owner/manager of the establishment...

[dicion]

I guess they never read the BOMA ruling by Texas Attorney General at the time, Dan Morales. He stated unequivocally that if a store posted a sign prohibiting guns by CHL or law enforcement, it wold assume ALL liability and they would be criminally accountable for any actions that harmed their customers or employees. This was stated as a request for ruling in 1995, It is no longer searchable. THAT is why Sears, Walmart, HEB, and other stores never had the postings...too muchof a liability issue.

I FOUND the above ruling!

It's a reader, for sure. Entire text is here:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... hl/AGO.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I read through it.. I'll quote the interesting parts below:

Next you ask, "If a business owner/operator can restrict the carrying of concealed [handguns] on the[ir] premises, what [type of] authority do they have to insure compliance?" In a related question, you ask about the potential liability of a business owner or operator "for removing someone for non-compliance." As is clear from the above discussion, a business owner or operator can insure compliance through enforcement of the criminal trespass statute by reporting the trespass to the proper law enforcement authorities and filing a criminal complaint against an alleged trespasser. A brief discussion of business owners' and operators' other possible options and the potential liability inherent in those options follows.

You also ask about the potential liability of a business owner or operator "for a third party who is injured by a [license holder] who has failed to comply" with a notice prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns on the premises. Generally, an ordinary business owner or operator, as opposed to a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his or her invitees. An occupier of business premises is not an insurer of the safety of his or her invitees. Garner v. McGinty, 771 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tex. Civ. App.--Austin 1989, no writ). "A business invitor owes a duty to his business invitees to take reasonable steps to protect them from intentional injuries caused by third parties if he knows or has reason to know, from what he has observed or from past experience, that criminal acts are likely to occur, either generally or at some particular time." Id. at 246; Castillo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 663 S.W.2d 60, 66 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("there is no duty upon the owners or operators of a shopping center . . . or upon merchants and shopkeepers generally, whose mode of operation of their premises does not attract or provide a climate for crime, to guard against criminal acts of a third party, unless they know . . . that acts are occurring or are about to occur on the premises that pose imminent probability of harm to an invitee; whereupon a duty of reasonable care to protect against such act arises."). Thus, a plaintiff in a case against an ordinary business owner or operator will have to demonstrate that the business owner or operator knew or had reason to know that criminal acts were likely to occur in order to establish that the business owner or operator had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect invitees from injuries caused by third parties. By contrast, the duty of a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment generally includes the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect patrons from assaults of third persons while on the premises. Eastep v. Jack-in-the-Box, Inc., 546 S.W.2d 116 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.).



Once a duty to protect patrons from the intentional acts of third parties is established, whether a business owner or operator will be held liable for injuries to customers inflicted by third persons appears to depend in great part upon the foreseeability of the assault and whether the business owner or operator took reasonable measures to prevent the assault. Compare id. (restaurant was negligent for failing to demand that perpetrators of knife fight leave premises before fight began and to warn plaintiffs of acts and conditions of perpetrators before fight began) with Campos v. South Tex. Beverage Co., 679 S.W.2d 739 (Tex. Civ. App.--El Paso 1984, no writ) (restaurant did not breach its duty of care to business invitee who was shot to death during robbery in restaurant where restaurant had no knowledge of potential danger). We believe it is unlikely that a trier of fact would conclude that a business owner or operator who posted a sign prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns on the premises was liable for injuries to a patron inflicted by a license holder carrying a concealed handgun. First, it would be difficult for a business owner or operator to foresee an injury inflicted by a person carrying a concealed handgun. Furthermore, we believe that a trier of fact would likely conclude that the business owner or operator had taken reasonable steps to prevent the injury by posting the sign prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons on the premises.

As I read it.. it mentions nothing about liability for preventing chl's if a BG comes in and shoots people. It only covers liability for persons injured BY Chl's.