TexasCHLforum.com

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?

Nope. (I wish!)

Your problem is you're thinking logically, not legally.

Your company, and their insurance agency will claim, "we don't allow guns, we ban them for safety! See what happens when one gets behind our safe walls!"

Some companies ban guns because their insurance makes them.

I dealt with company safety rule before. If a contractor comes in without wearing hard hat, knowningly disobey the company policy, the company is NOT liable. However, if he follows a procedure that we set and got hurt because of the faulty procedure, you bet the company is liable.

Stupid wrote:I dealt with company safety rule before. If a contractor comes in without wearing hard hat, knowningly disobey the company policy, the company is NOT liable. However, if he follows a procedure that we set and got hurt because of the faulty procedure, you bet the company is liable.

Now, if you prohibited that contractor from wearing a hard hat, and he was hurt by someone doing something not according to policy, don't you suspect the company would be found at least partially liable for refusing to allow him to protect himself?

If someone is shot on private property, you can be sure that the property owner will be sued. Whether the plaintiff will get anything is up to the judge and jury.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:If someone is shot on private property, you can be sure that the property owner will be sued. Whether the plaintiff will get anything is up to the judge and jury.

- Jim

Exactly. Liability is a matter of fact for a judge or jury. They will decide based on facts and evidence presented.

Again, everyone is ruining the argument by bringing logic into it.

Established law allows private property owners to ban guns, for better or worse.

Established case law (from my non-lawyerishness) seems to not follow the logical conclusion that if an employer bans guns, and "something should go down" they should be liable.

In fact, in some cases, If I was a bloodthirsty lawyer, and something like the issue in Chicago went down, and the employer DID NOT ban guns, it could be argued that the failure to ban guns allowed the incident to take place.
(Again, we're thinking like bloodthirsty moneygrubbing lawyers, not logically.)

Texas is also a right-to-work state. If you feel your employer does not allow you to stay safe, you're welcome to quit and find another job.

Sure, it should be this way, but it isn't.

nitrogen wrote:Established case law (from my non-lawyerishness) seems to not follow the logical conclusion that if an employer bans guns, and "something should go down" they should be liable.

I don't know why you say that. Google "woman shot wal-mart $ million." I'm only picking on Wal-Mart because they're big and a lot of bad stuff has happened in Wal-Marts.

If a store or workplace is hit by a plane crash, or some other such unforeseeable event, injured people and their survivors will sue everyone in sight, and probably get damages from all of them.

- Jim

nitrogen wrote: Established case law (from my non-lawyerishness) seems to not follow the logical conclusion that if an employer bans guns, and "something should go down" they should be liable.

There is no "case law" for civil trials. Each case is decided on its own merit.

Texas is also a right-to-work state. If you feel your employer does not allow you to stay safe, you're welcome to quit and find another job.

Although Texas is a right to work state; Right-to-work laws are state statutes that ban the practice of requiring union membership or financial support to a union as a condition of employment, and provide employees with individual bargaining rights.

What you refer to is an At-Will state, and Texas is that too.

Of course I get my terms wrong.

What I meant to say is that i'm unaware of any cases where this has happened, but if it's happened before, i'd love to know about it.

Ultimately, it's an individuals choice to work for (or not) a company that suppresses ones right to self defense. It may be inconvenient to change employers, or maybe even next to impossible but it's still a choice.

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?

Let's say a company bans weapons carried by employees (company policy in handbook, etc) and customers (TPC 30.06). IMO, if you the employee suffers injury as stated in your scenerio, then your hope to recover because you were not allowed to carry is less than in a scenerio wherein you the employee could not carry BUT customers were allowed to carry, that is, not expressly forbidden to carry.

Example, our local hospital is posted with 30.06 signs, so no one is allowed to carry in the building. However, patients/visitors/ etc are allowed to leave their weapons in their respective vehicles parked on hospital property. On the other hand, hospital employees are strictly forbidden to leave any weapon in their vehicle parked on hospital property. IMO, this spells lawsuit waiting to happen.

BTW, there are volumes of reported civil trials. These cases, commonly refered to as "case law" are extremely important when arguing various motions which may be filed by either side in any civil case. Often these motions address the admission of evidence in a civil trial as well as what disclosure may be required in discovery.

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.)

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".