GFZ lawsuits, where are they?

K

Koda94

New member
Note, not certain if this should go in the legal forum...


I keep hearing all the time that the reason stores, corporations, shopping malls, work places etc. make gun free zone policies is because of potential lawsuits if they didn’t have such a policy. The idea here is that if someone, including an employee, shot up the place the business couldn’t be sued because the shooter wasn’t supposed to have a gun there in the first place.

this logic of course seems flawed to me I don’t see how a simple policy would prevent a lawsuit especially if the company does nothing else to prevent guns in their property. Could one argue that because they put the policy in place they had reason to believe that gun violence could occur but did nothing else physically, such as metal detectors or security guards etc., to prevent guns from being on the property?

so in light of all these policies, has there ever been a lawsuit because of a violent incident involving guns? Has anyone ever sued a company because they were a victim of gun violence in a place of business regardless of a gun free policy?
 
My understanding of comercial gun free zones were made because the person in charge believes allowing guns markedly thevpremises less safe. It falls under private property rights.


Other traditional gfz like hospitals, bars, schools ect. Are places of high emotion and have traditionally had violence occur in these places. These are governed by state and local governments.
 
thats a good point, I understand about private property rights but not intending to discuss that here.... a lack of a policy does not specifically allow guns to be there.
Im interested if there has ever been a lawsuit against a business because of gun violence? I guess I could clarify that to include regardless of policy! But I'd be curious to learn if those that did have a policy were acquitted specifically because of the policy...

My main topic is is about any lawsuits.
 
There really aren't any. On what grounds would I sue? I can't show damages.

Even if I were hurt in a shooting, the only way they might be culpable is if the shooting was done by an employee. Vicarious liability doesn't apply to the actions of a third party.
 
that’s what I thought, I think these store policies are bogus or misinformed decisions, there is no reason to create a policy unless the owner is anti-gun. I could only see a case if the business explicitly allowed employees to carry guns and an employee injured someone, perhaps such as at a gun store which is somewhat ironic.
 
I don't think anyone seriously believes a sign or a policy is going to stop someone who is determined to shoot people places and things.

At a guess, I think where they are trying to cover their butts is not against a rampage shooter, but against someone who is not, but has an accident with a gun on their premises.

Not sure how it would parse out in legalese, but essentially their argument would be "you (store owner) did not forbid guns, therefore you did not take sufficient action to minimize the risk, and are liable".

If they can convince a jury that you didn't go far enough (no matter the reality), then you will pay. They'' probably go for the argument that you knew, or should have known an accident was possible, if you allowed armed people into your store.

Against the cost of being in court, let alone the possibility of being found at fault, a policy and a sign are cheap.


have I ever heard of one of these kinds of lawsuits? No, I have not, but then, I don't follow such things much.
 
Under some circumstances, a property owner or other party has been held partially responsible for lack of reasonable security measures; e.g., dim or no lights even though there have been repeated assaults or robberies on property. The key point in such lawsuits is usually the foreseability of harm.

A lawsuit involving a very high profile murder in my city settled recently between the family of the deceased victim and the owner's association when the victim's former boyfriend (former state house member and son of a former governor) shot and killed her. Part of the allegations:

Diana Ross alleged that Opera House Square allowed Nunn to gain access to her daughter after Amanda Ross told the townhouse association she had an active emergency protective order against him.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/08/16/...ached-friday-in-nunns.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...

The ex-boyfriend (Nunn) is serving life without parole.

It would probably be harder to prove liability for not putting up a "no guns" sign but consider the situation where tempers flared and someone pulled out a gun and shot someone. What if that person did not normally carry if the property was posted and, the property was not posted? The world is just crazy enough for me to believe a property owner might be held responsible, at least in some localities.
 
Last edited:
If they clearly post a sign on the door, you can choose not to walk through the door. You don't have to go in, but if you do you accept that rule and proceed by choice at your own risk.
 
Here is an article from the Wisconsin State Bar Association.

http://www.wisbar.org/newspublicati...article.aspx?Volume=85&Issue=7&ArticleID=8710

If you scroll down to, Illustrations: Proprietors, Employers, Municipalities, there are a couple of scenarios that may be relevant to this discussion.

Here is a little snip from the article.

Assume that, alternatively, the plaintiff contends that the owner was negligent in 1) prohibiting concealed weapons, 2) improperly posting a "No Guns Allowed" sign, and 3) not implementing adequate safety precautions in view of the neighborhood and the history of criminal activity at the store. The first two of these bases are weak. Although it can be argued that by prohibiting concealed weapons, the owner has deprived licensees on the premises the opportunity to defend themselves and thus has assumed responsibility,42 this seems to be a fairly absurd position given that the legislature obviously gave owners a choice of whether to allow or prohibit concealed carry. Moreover, the mere posting of a sign does not make it foreseeable that a criminal will enter the premises on a certain day and create havoc.43
...These bases are moored by a "disarmed victim" paradigm, which assumes that the victim, if armed, certainly could have thwarted the attack or shooting. However, in Jones v. Tokhi, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals noted that shooting or attempting to disarm an attacker is far easier said than done: "When victims are facing the barrel of a gun and listening to threats to shoot them, it is difficult to know what they should do. Actions that seem prudent and prove successful under one set of circumstances may prove disastrous under others."45 In view of this uncertainty when a victim faces a gun barrel, it is unlikely that a court could ever rule as a matter of law that a proprietor should be held liable to a victim merely because the proprietor prohibited concealed weapons on the premises.
Click to expand...

The article mentioned Jones v. Tokhi, that can be found here.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1995707193Wis2d514_1671.xml/JONES v. TOKHI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top