Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:54 pm
by gigag04
Liberty wrote:HankB wrote:If a company explicitly prohibits carrying by someone trained, licensed, and certified by the state to carry a concealed weapon for lawful self protection, then it can be argued that the company is, in effect, guaranteeing that person's safety, and telling him he doesn't need the gun on their propery. (Unless they're arguing that the state is wrong to issue CHLs.)
If the person disarmed by company policy subsequently comes to harm in a situation in which his possession & use of a concealed handgun could plausibly have prevented that harm, then there may well be grounds for a civil lawsuit against the company that explicitly denied him means of self protection, AND failed to provide protection.
It's been said that you can sue almost anyone for almost anything. Whether or not the injured party prevails in the civil lawsuit depends on a great many factors, including the skill of his lawyer, skill of opposing counsel, case law (if any), whether the judge tosses the case or allows it to proceed, the jury, appeals, and so forth and so on.
IANAL, but IIRC, TSRA used to have a letter on file at their website from a lawyer at the Texas Building Owner's and Manager's Association that opined something of the sort.
IMHO, without already established case law setting a favorable precedent, winning this sort of civil suit would be difficult.
(Any attorneys reading this and disagreeing, please chime in and set this non-attorney straight.)
What if there is no policy and the right for a CHL to carry would be implied.
Would an accidental/negligent discharge that results in an injury, Is it possible the that the employer could be held liable. Like the man says "Damned if youdo, Damned if you don't".
Nah. Just as Texas is an at will employer state, it is also an "at will go in this building and be disarmed" state. You are not forced to go into buildings where you have to disarm, it is by your choice.
Can you sue an airline or the gov't because you are taken hostage on a commercial flight, and could've rambo-style shot your way out of it if only you could carry?
I know, the logic IS extreme, but a law, or court precedent like this would be niether reasonable nor prudent, IMHO.
Good questions though for sure, on all sides.
-nick
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:42 pm
by HankB
Liberty wrote: What if there is no policy and the right for a CHL to carry would be implied. Would an accidental/negligent discharge that results in an injury, Is it possible the that the employer could be held liable. Like the man says "Damned if youdo, Damned if you don't".
Unlikely, as the CHL holder was licensed and certified by the STATE, not by the employer. This would likely be no more of a risk than the employer who allows licensed drivers to drive in the parking lot, or use a company car, or use a company rental car when on company business.
gigag04 wrote:Can you sue an airline or the gov't because you are taken hostage on a commercial flight, and could've rambo-style shot your way out of it if only you could carry?
Not applicable, as airliners and the secured areas of an airport are explicitly off-limits for CHL holders to carry under both state and federal law - it's not an exercise of a private party's (i.e., the airline's) discretion. (If the state doesn't license you to do it, it will be difficult to prevail in a lawsuit where the state is a defendant.)
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:45 am
by KD5NRH
gigag04 wrote:Nah. Just as Texas is an at will employer state, it is also an "at will go in this building and be disarmed" state. You are not forced to go into buildings where you have to disarm, it is by your choice.
Tell ya what; open a welding shop and don't let your employees wear goggles. When they drag your butt into court, tell the judge they had a right to not work for you and see how far that gets you.
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:25 pm
by txinvestigator
KD5NRH wrote:gigag04 wrote:Nah. Just as Texas is an at will employer state, it is also an "at will go in this building and be disarmed" state. You are not forced to go into buildings where you have to disarm, it is by your choice.
Tell ya what; open a welding shop and don't let your employees wear goggles. When they drag your butt into court, tell the judge they had a right to not work for you and see how far that gets you.
That is not a valid comparison.
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:52 am
by KD5NRH
txinvestigator wrote:KD5NRH wrote:That is not a valid comparison.
Congratulations on forming a complete sentence. Will you be trying for an entire paragraph next time?
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:39 am
by gigag04
KD5NRH wrote:gigag04 wrote:Nah. Just as Texas is an at will employer state, it is also an "at will go in this building and be disarmed" state. You are not forced to go into buildings where you have to disarm, it is by your choice.
Tell ya what; open a welding shop and don't let your employees wear goggles. When they drag your butt into court, tell the judge they had a right to not work for you and see how far that gets you.
I understand your frustration, believe me. However, this is not how the court/legal/societal systems that are in place work. For the masses, a firearm is not seen as a reasonable, prudent, or even necessary piece of equipment to "do life."
-nick
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:32 pm
by txinvestigator
KD5NRH wrote:txinvestigator wrote:KD5NRH wrote:That is not a valid comparison.
Congratulations on forming a complete sentence. Will you be trying for an entire paragraph next time?
You messed up your quotes. If you are going to try to be smart, perhaps you should be sure your ducks are in a row.
I am pretty sure the sentence was English; shall I grab a crayon and draw you a picture?
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:07 pm
by SRVA
Please refer to the Forum Guidelines about conduct and refrain from personal attacks.
Merry Christmas All,
Steve
Re: Isn't company liable for not allowing CHL if I am hurt?
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:47 pm
by cxm
This is not defined at law...but I would certainly have our attorney sue anyone who had prohibited me from carrying if I were hurt on their property.
At that point it would be up to a jury... I think you have a good chance of winning...
FWIW
Chuck
Stupid wrote:Isn't company liable, when I am hurt because some disgrunted employee came back and started shooting, since I were out of options of defending myself since the company's policy does not allow me to carry my weapon?
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:17 am
by dihappy
gigag04 wrote:I understand your frustration, believe me. However, this is not how the court/legal/societal systems that are in place work. For the masses, a firearm is not seen as a reasonable, prudent, or even necessary piece of equipment to "do life."
-nick-nick
Exactly. The "right" to carry isnt something required or mandated by OSHA for example. You arent breaking any laws or codes by NOT carrying, whereas NOT wearing a helmet or goggles may be.
Employer liability
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:53 am
by switch
First, the employer is NOT liable for the death or injury of an employee! That's what Workers compensation insurance covers. An employee's relief/law suit will be directed at the insurance carrier, not toward the company. (There are exceptions for known/recognized dangers.)
The company could be held liable if a customer, vendor or general public was injured because they created a gun free zone.
AZ has a law provided for 100% liability if you create a gun-free zone (300% if the injured was elderly, minor or the victim of a terrorist's act).
Remember, you could be sued in civil court for almost anything. I'm thinking about suing Coors for all those ugly women I woke up with.
Re: Employer liability
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:23 am
by seamusTX
switch wrote:First, the employer is NOT liable for the death or injury of an employee! That's what Workers compensation insurance covers. An employee's relief/law suit will be directed at the insurance carrier, not toward the company. (There are exceptions for known/recognized dangers.)
I don't think that's strictly true. Workers compensation covers injuries in the workplace.
The family of someone is killed can sue the company for loss of income and other damages.
BP (the oil company) recently forked over more than $20 million to settle a wrongful death suit by the daughter of two employees who were killed in an explosion at the Texas City refinery.
These settlements may be covered by insurance, but the company will ultimately pay for it in higher premiums.
- Jim
implied liability?
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:47 am
by switch
Liberty wrote:What if there is no policy and the right for a CHL to carry would be implied.
Would an accidental/negligent discharge that results in an injury, Is it possible the that the employer could be held liable. Like the man says "Damned if youdo, Damned if you don't".
I do not think so. If you decide you do not want to pay for/post 30.06 signs, do you need to post signs that say "Don't play with your guns"? Would the company be liable if you got stabbed with scissors? knife? What about horseplay? Tackled in a touch football game in the warehouse? Tripped and fell through a window.
What about the drunk that went through a 17th floor window (including through or over the safety bar) and fell 300 feet? (Luckily, he lived.) Someone may be liable if the window was sub-standard.
Re: Employer liability
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:42 am
by Liberty
seamusTX wrote:switch wrote:First, the employer is NOT liable for the death or injury of an employee! That's what Workers compensation insurance covers. An employee's relief/law suit will be directed at the insurance carrier, not toward the company. (There are exceptions for known/recognized dangers.)
I don't think that's strictly true. Workers compensation covers injuries in the workplace.
The family of someone is killed can sue the company for loss of income and other damages.
BP (the oil company) recently forked over more than $20 million to settle a wrongful death suit by the daughter of two employees who were killed in an explosion at the Texas City refinery.
These settlements may be covered by insurance, but the company will ultimately pay for it in higher premiums.
- Jim
Just a minor correction. Those people killed were not employees of BP, but rather employees of the contractor.
Re: Employer liability
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:29 am
by seamusTX
Liberty wrote:Just a minor correction. Those people killed were not employees of BP, but rather employees of the contractor.
Right. I forgot that.
- Jim