Glenn E. Meyer
New member
So I've been reading the parking lot - gun in car debate in TX as well as the open-carry debate.
One point is that businesses fear liability of carry and thus want to ban it. Of course, in the debate on the TX forums, someone says - Well, wait till a business gets sued for not allowing carry and then there is an incident and they get sued. It's kind of an internet cliche.
But is it a viable legal doctrine? I searched on legal scholarly data bases and found some recent law reviews suggesting that the liability is the other way in their opinion. Businesses are more at risk if they allow carry (thus some states have provisions to reduce liability but even that isn't seen as absolute).
So for our legal experts, is it a viable lawsuit - a place forbids, a crime injures you and you claim that if you carried, you could have prevented the harm?
Would a lawyer take it on contingency?
Thoughts?
One point is that businesses fear liability of carry and thus want to ban it. Of course, in the debate on the TX forums, someone says - Well, wait till a business gets sued for not allowing carry and then there is an incident and they get sued. It's kind of an internet cliche.
But is it a viable legal doctrine? I searched on legal scholarly data bases and found some recent law reviews suggesting that the liability is the other way in their opinion. Businesses are more at risk if they allow carry (thus some states have provisions to reduce liability but even that isn't seen as absolute).
So for our legal experts, is it a viable lawsuit - a place forbids, a crime injures you and you claim that if you carried, you could have prevented the harm?
Would a lawyer take it on contingency?
Thoughts?