Suing a business for being anti-CHL

[tallmike]

I have seen a few comments lately, in articles and online, about suing a company that refuses to allow a CHL holder to be armed at their location if a criminal comes in and does something to them. I just don't understand this logic.

I'm sure there are a few of you that share this view and I am hoping someone can explain to me how the business would be responsible for something someone else did.

If a business chooses to restrict CHL holders, you know that going in and make the decision about whether you want to enter their property or spend your time/money somewhere else. Once you make the decision to enter their property you can choose to either be legally unarmed, or illegally armed - only you can make that decision for yourself. Whichever you choose, you are responsible for that decision.

The private company is not denying you any right, they are simply exercising their private property rights. How can we scream about our rights if we do not respect theirs?

I think everyone should simply accept responsibility for our own choices on where to go, and stop threatening lawsuits over everything. Everyone hates frivolous lawsuits but when our sacred cow is the one on the chopping block then its OK to jam up the courts when simply voting with our feet can make the difference.

[LJM]

[cougartex]

[Lefty Writer]

Too many frivolous lawsuits over everything these days...

If one doesn't agree with the business' policies, go somewhere else.

[Purplehood]

You only sue them after you comply and enter the business unarmed and then are attacked. You don't sue until and unless this happens. I too hate frivolous lawsuits.
Hopefully, you never need to sue.

[davidtx]

I'm just curious if opinions would be different if the example was an employee, rather than a customer. The employee still has a choice, although in these tough economic time, perhaps a very tough and expensive choice.

Just askin'

[3dfxMM]

You only sue them after you comply and enter the business unarmed and then are attacked. You don't sue until and unless this happens.

Sue them for what? You chose to go somewhere unarmed and ended up being attacked.

[bdickens]

You can pretty much sue anybody for anything.

[Charles L. Cotton]

A frivolous lawsuit is one that has absolutely no basis in law for fact, but the bogus Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse has done a great job of convincing people frivolous lawsuits are as common as red dirt in East Texas. (Do some research and see "who" the Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse really is. It might change your mind.) I've been an attorney for a long time, including 10 years when about 80% of my docket was medical malpractice defense. In all my years of practice, I've only seen about 4 or 5 lawsuits I consider to be frivolous. Every one of them were filed by a pro se plaintiff; that is, someone representing themselves without a lawyer. Attorneys aren't going to pour money into a case that they know they are going to lose, unless it's a politically motivated case and those are rare.

The legal theory for suing a business is based upon the business accepting a heightened duty to protect you. This duty is created by 1) posting a "no guns" sign on their door; 2) forcing you to disarm; and 3) doing nothing to enforce the "no guns" policy and thereby allowing an armed criminal to enter the property and injure or kill you. The sign led you to believe the business owner was enforcing the sign by taking all reasonable and necessary steps to exclude armed persons from the premises.

This is an untried theory in Texas, as the general rule is a business owner is not responsible for the illegal acts of an unrelated third party, except in very narrow circumstances. I do not offer an opinion as to whether such a suit would be successful, but I certainly would not take a case like this unless the facts against the business owner were aggravated.

The argument that you made the decision to enter unarmed, thus you assumed the risk has some merit, but it's not controlling as negligence or fault will be allocated between the plaintiff and defendant. In this fact pattern, the plaintiff cannot be charged with knowledge that the business owner would not meet his heightened duty to business invitees, unless there was admissible evidence the plaintiff was aware of this fact. (This is a very general overview of Texas tort law; no one wants to read a law school dissertation!)

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

You only sue them after you comply and enter the business unarmed and then are attacked. You don't sue until and unless this happens.

Sue them for what? You chose to go somewhere unarmed and ended up being attacked.

Sue them for negligence. Every day you get into your car, you know there are drunk drivers and other dangerous drivers on the road, but you don't waive your right to seek damages if you are injured or killed.

Chas.

[Hoi Polloi]

The argument that you made the decision to enter unarmed, thus you assumed the risk has some merit, but it's not controlling as negligence or fault will be allocated between the plaintiff and defendant. In this fact pattern, the plaintiff cannot be charged with knowledge that the business owner would not meet his heightened duty to business invitees, unless there was admissible evidence the plaintiff was aware of this fact. (This is a very general overview of Texas tort law; no one wants to read a law school dissertation!)

Chas.

Interesting! Thanks!

Wouldn't a reasonable person have the knowledge that the owner did not have heightened security measures to exclude guns and therefore reasonably conclude that a criminal could defy the company policy and bring a gun onto the premises? Wouldn't his desire to bring his CHL weapon onto the property belie this underlying knowledge as a fact?

[Charles L. Cotton]

The argument that you made the decision to enter unarmed, thus you assumed the risk has some merit, but it's not controlling as negligence or fault will be allocated between the plaintiff and defendant. In this fact pattern, the plaintiff cannot be charged with knowledge that the business owner would not meet his heightened duty to business invitees, unless there was admissible evidence the plaintiff was aware of this fact. (This is a very general overview of Texas tort law; no one wants to read a law school dissertation!)

Chas.

Interesting! Thanks!

Wouldn't a reasonable person have the knowledge that the owner did not have heightened security measures to exclude guns and therefore reasonably conclude that a criminal could defy the company policy and bring a gun onto the premises? Wouldn't his desire to bring his CHL weapon onto the property belie this underlying knowledge as a fact?

Not at all. There is no way for anyone to know this. Heightened security measure could include metal detectors at doors, but it could also include off-duty officers in plain clothes or security guards monitoring video equipment, or any of a number of other possibilities.

Businesses are held to a higher standard with regards to the safety of business invitees and people entering the store/business have a right to expect the owners to comply with fire codes, elevator codes, and other safety regulations they themselves are incapable of evaluating. When an individual or entity establishes a higher standard of care for themselves than the law would otherwise impose, that person or entity is held to that higher standard of care. Posting a "no guns" sign tells the public that they can enter the premises confident in the knowledge that no one will be armed. Misleading business invitees can carry consequences in civil court in civil court.

Chas.

[tallmike]

Thank you Charles. I do not agree with the idea of suing the business owner for the actions of a criminal, but at least now I see that it can be made into a reasonable argument.

Yes, I really am one of those folks who believes most topics are gray instead of black or white. The fact that a reasonable argument can be made about a topic allows me to be more understanding of the people who disagree with me.

So, thank you for helping me see the other side.

[RPB]

Thank you Charles. I do not agree with the idea of suing the business owner for the actions of a criminal, but at least now I see that it can be made into a reasonable argument.

Yes, I really am one of those folks who believes most topics are gray instead of black or white. The fact that a reasonable argument can be made about a topic allows me to be more understanding of the people who disagree with me.

So, thank you for helping me see the other side.

I wouldn't sue a business owner for the action of a third party either (kid spilling liquid on a floor that I slip in)
but I would sue a business owner for causing me damages due to THEIR NEGLIGENCE when they knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed (Say after the liquid has been on the floor for 7 hours in a high traffic area and it's turning crispy around the edges from evaporation and shopping cart wheel tracks have spread it .... and it's in an area in front of the cash register or employee break room ...) 1) failing to warn (wet floor signs) and 2) failing to take action (take action to correct the condition/clean it up)

Also if they actually created the dangerous condition, like they poured the liquid on the floor to mop and failed to warn/put up signs or rope off areas or mop up the water they pour out, then I don't even need to prove they knew or should have known a dangerous condition existed, because they created the dangerous condition (such as creating and announcing their property as a target rich zone.)

[Oldgringo]

It would seem to this po' boy that a "Shall Issue State" pretty well sets the stage for the lawsuit against a business that has a "no CC admit" policy. The business owner's denial/refusal to accept the states" Shall Issue Law" should be construed to be Owner's acceptance of the responsibilty for the patron's safety that he denied them.

OTOH, a state that allows "NO CC or OC" has provided notice to its citizens/visitors that you are on your own...the police will be there soon as they can.

Owner, you are on notice: if harm befalls me or mine in, or around, your establishment where reasonably anticipated security was breached for any reason, I'm going to seek what relief from pain, suffering, loss of consortium, etc., etc. that is legally available.

So much for the Holiday Inn Express thinghy, I'm gonna' stay home tonight.