Suing a business for being anti-CHL

[Hoi Polloi]

I don't see the logic of saying you wouldn't sue if you were injured as a customer, but you would if you were an employee. In both cases you chose to enter the premises knowing you cannot be armed.

Chas.

It seems to me that that logic was used in passing smoking bans in restaurants. While customers willfully chose to enter the establishment, it was determined to be an unhealthy and toxic work environment to the employees, often teenagers or young adults. The counterargument was that they could get a job at a grocery store or other place that didn't allow smoking, but the argument that it was detrimental to the employees' health won out in cities and counties across the country if I'm remembering correctly. (I didn't look it up and am going off memory.)

[Oldgringo]

It seems to me that that logic was used in passing smoking bans in restaurants. While customers willfully chose to enter the establishment, it was determined to be an unhealthy and toxic work environment to the employees, often teenagers or young adults. The counterargument was that they could get a job at a grocery store or other place that didn't allow smoking, but the argument that it was detrimental to the employees' health won out in cities and counties across the country if I'm remembering correctly. (I didn't look it up and am going off memory.)[/quote]

We digress a bit from the OP but speaking of smoking bans, Mrs. Oldgringo and I were in Montana last year when the entire state went smoke free on 1 October - restaurants, saloons, casinos, honky-tonks, fillin' stations and all. Since we don't smoke no more, I think that nobody else ought to do it neither.

Quickly now lads, back on topic.

[C-dub]

I don't see the logic of saying you wouldn't sue if you were injured as a customer, but you would if you were an employee. In both cases you chose to enter the premises knowing you cannot be armed.

Chas.

Yeah, it's kinda of strange. I don't know. It just seems like I'm accepting the risk if I willingly disarm and go ahead and enter a business as a customer when I could go to a different store that doesn't require me to disarm. My options, due to my profession, are going to be extremely limited when it comes to finding an employer that does not prevent me from carrying or even keeping it my vehicle, so it seems like less of a choice that I'm entering unarmed.

I'm normally a very logical person. Now you have me wondering.

[AJ80]

What about a place that you are legally required to be and also legally required to be disarmed such as jury duty?
What if you are severely harmed there, and there is evidence suggesting that you could have escaped harm if you had just been armed?

[A-R]

I'm all for suing businesses that post 30.06 if a disarmed CHLee is injured or killed because they were banned from carrying. To me it's equivalent to denying a blind person the right to bring a seeing-eye dog into a business. By doing so, you unnecessarily place the person at greater risk.

As for the argument that we can choose not to go to 30.06 posted business, that may have some merit in a big city. But what if the only pharmacy in your town posts 30.06? What about the only doctor? Of course, even in big cities I find the argument weak. Why should I be denied entry to a business merely for participating in a perfectly legal activity?

I fully understand the rights of property owners and businesses, but like all rights they are not absolute. A property owner cannot ban you because of your race, sex, religion etc. They cannot prohibit entry because you're in a wheelchair, and depending on size are required by law to make special accomodations for your wheelchair.

And as always I must make very clear I am only talking about business and then only those that are regularly open to the public. This does not mean you must let someone into your home or your private office that doesn't have normal public hours.

I think such a lawsuit is bound to happen some day. Might not even be in Texas. But it will happen somewhere. To me the most difficult aspect to prove will be that even IF you had your gun you could have stopped, eliminated, or avoided the injurious threat better than you did without your gun.

All that said, employee parking lot rules are especially egregious overstepping of authority, IMHO. No company has a right to tell me what I will or will not keep inside my private automobile while I'm at work. Texas needs to make automobiles an extension of the home with all rights to privacy and domain. The Castle Law already applies to cars, as does unlicensed concealed carry. So why not just extend the whole 9 yards?

[Ageofease08]

This argument holds that you saw the sign, and DECIDED to enter the establishment unarmed> the establishment is not at fault if something happens in there. some establishment people are just paranoid that all those CHL toting bad guys are going to run in there and go postal. If they thought it about it like a rational person, they would see that allowing CHL holders makes no difference.

[Keith B]

This argument holds that you saw the sign, and DECIDED to enter the establishment unarmed> the establishment is not at fault if something happens in there. some establishment people are just paranoid that all those CHL toting bad guys are going to run in there and go postal. If they thought it about it like a rational person, they would see that allowing CHL holders makes no difference.

I disagree. The business has a responsibility of either providing me a safe and secure location or allow me to have a means to protect myself properly. And, before you say you can go somewhere else, let's assume there are not other options for this type of business.

Bottom line, liability falls back tot he business to keep me safe, and if they are negligent in their methods and expose me to danger, then IMO I have the right to go after them legally.

[Purplehood]

This argument holds that you saw the sign, and DECIDED to enter the establishment unarmed> the establishment is not at fault if something happens in there. some establishment people are just paranoid that all those CHL toting bad guys are going to run in there and go postal. If they thought it about it like a rational person, they would see that allowing CHL holders makes no difference.

I disagree. The business has a responsibility of either providing me a safe and secure location or allow me to have a means to protect myself properly. And, before you say you can go somewhere else, let's assume there are not other options for this type of business.

Bottom line, liability falls back tot he business to keep me safe, and if they are negligent in their methods and expose me to danger, then IMO I have the right to go after them legally.

Keith B, I agree with you.

The business is in effect stripping you of your ability to defend yourself should the need arise.

[RPB]

This argument holds that you saw the sign, and DECIDED to enter the establishment unarmed> the establishment is not at fault if something happens in there. some establishment people are just paranoid that all those CHL toting bad guys are going to run in there and go postal. If they thought it about it like a rational person, they would see that allowing CHL holders makes no difference.

Interesting term "go postal" derived from a "gun-free zone" post offices, where shootings occur against an unarmed population in a "target rich zone" such as the "store" is trying to create. Therefore, by creating a "target rich zone" such as post offices, the store is making it MORE LIKELY that someone would in fact "go postal."

At a store, it's important to realize that a "business invitee" is owed a duty or standard of care (look up/Google the term if you want)

Some smaller towns only have one "store" of whatever type/movie theater etc, and there is no choice or decision involved on the part of the patron which the business chooses to handicap/disable them from protecting themselves or others if they require the product/service which is sold by that business..

Like some unsafe household appliance/vehicle/drug manufacturers in the past who calculate what they'll need to pay out in claims versus the cost of making something safer and choose to create an unsafe situation since it is financially better for them, while failing to warn of the dangers of which they are aware.

Charles already addressed "Assumed Risk" as a defense the store might try to assert and the apportionment of liability/damages. Still, if I were a jurer, I'd hold the business liable a greater percentage since they created the dangerous condition and failed to warn and failed to take action to prevent injury/damages to patrons fully knowing that they created the dangerous condition.

[Charles L. Cotton]

What about a place that you are legally required to be and also legally required to be disarmed such as jury duty?
What if you are severely harmed there, and there is evidence suggesting that you could have escaped harm if you had just been armed?

The government has sovereign immunity so you can't recover. This immunity has been partially waived to the extent set out in the Texas Tort Claims Act, but the exceptions wouldn't apply in this scenario.

Chas.

[bdickens]

So an employer says employees cannot have a weapon on the premisis including the parking lot.
Me being a law abiding citizen and employee leave my gun at home.
99% of the time I carry a gun except on the way to and from work.

Some psycho goes crazy on the highway on my way to work. I get shot because I was unarmed. I was unarmed because I cannot have a gun in my car at work.

Is my employer liable?

Ty

Your employer's policies do not have the force of law.

[Ageofease08]

a sign that says "no guns allowed" is all that a company needs` to absolve themselves from liability in such a case.It is their right to say "no guns" and it is the gun-carryiers right to walk away. "Enforcing" is impossible for a business, as they would actually have to search each and every customer for the off chance that they had a gun on their person. Which, im sure, someone would probably sue for invasion of privacy or something. Face it, as much as we would like to believe that texas is the old west, we cant. Which means, we cant just walk into any place with our guns on our hips, as much as i want to.

[RPB]

a sign that says "no guns allowed" is all that a company needs` to absolve themselves from liability in such a case.It is their right to say "no guns" and it is the gun-carryiers right to walk away. "Enforcing" is impossible for a business, as they would actually have to search each and every customer for the off chance that they had a gun on their person. Which, im sure, someone would probably sue for invasion of privacy or something. Face it, as much as we would like to believe that texas is the old west, we cant. Which means, we cant just walk into any place with our guns on our hips, as much as i want to.

That isn't a correct statement of law.

A business can post all the "Not responsible for injuries/etc" or post 3x5 card sized "no licensed, armed good guys who are either retired from Law Enforcement or are out of their current jurisdictional territory, nor any illegally armed guys allowed" signs they want, or even a 30.06 sign ... and it doesn't automatically absolve them from all liability for creating a dangerous condition in the first place, though it might create a target rich danger zone creating a liability which didn't previously exist.

You would want the business to provide hard hats in a dangerous construction zone ... that's reasonable, so where's the business-provided Kevlar vest in their target rich higher risk area?

"NEGLIGENCE" is always based upon "Foreseeability" It's more foreseeable, based upon historical statistics, that mass shootings typically/normally take place in target rich gun free zones. Statistically, a business should be more liable for creating one, as opposed to NOT creating one and an event taking place

[Charles L. Cotton]

a sign that says "no guns allowed" is all that a company needs` to absolve themselves from liability in such a case.

I have no idea where you got this opinion, but you could not be more wrong.

Chas.

[C-dub]

a sign that says "no guns allowed" is all that a company needs` to absolve themselves from liability in such a case.

I have no idea where you got this opinion, but you could not be more wrong.

Chas.

Exactly. Isn't this just like like the trucks driving down the road with signs saying they are not responsible for broken windshields. I think they have been held responsible despite these signs unless they have taken adequate provisions to prevent things from popping out of the trailer.