"no carry" zones opening them selfs to law suits?

C

Cjsrch

New member
Had an interesting convo with a laywer at a gun store.

He feels as if their may be some cause for those injured (for example at the Colorado theater) to sue the property owner for not allowing CC and at the same time not providing any security that would protect you due to your lack of self protection.

Not sure if he is right. I think it's a personal choice to go some where like that.

But then again some one some where is rich because they didn't know hot coffee was hot..


What's your take on what this guy was saying?
 
Agreed. That won't start a flurry of lawsuits, but that argument won't hold (nor will I doubt, it be argued). The chain will be sued over not doing enough to insure a secure environment basically, including not securing the emergency doors, not having proper lighting, not having proper security personnel. You can ignore the fact that the last two are utterly unrealistic in a movie theater.

Now the emergency exit. That will be an interesting claim. You can argue there should be an alarm that sounds when the door is opened (assuming he didn't cut wires to an existing system like that in the first, he seemed extremely methodical in his madness). Has there been any evidence that he someohow propped the door open earlier or something?

EDIT: I am just hoping chains don't go off the deepend and start trying to search bags, metal detectors all that nonsense, or somehow TSA/local versions don't try to start all that nonsense. I will not be searched just to go to a movie.
 
You can argue there should be an alarm that sounds when the door is opened (assuming he didn't cut wires to an existing system like that in the first, he seemed extremely methodical in his madness). Has there been any evidence that he someohow propped the door open earlier or something?
Click to expand...

I have been waiting for more information on that very point myself but so far, no one in the media has asked the question. If there was no alarm on the door, or if was improperly secured (not locked so as to prevent unauthorized entry), that could open the cinema to a lawsuit.
 
We've had this discussion among our own TFL gun friendly lawyers awhile ago. I can't speak except from my own memory of the conversation.

Basically, the business is not responsible for the actions of the criminal. They are not responsible for following the laws on allowing carry if that goes awry. Meaning they were within the law as to the control of carry. The criminal is responsible for his or her actions. The connection is too remote that they can predict such a rampage and thus allow you to carry.

They have no guarantee or prediction that allowing you to carry would save the day. You could screw up or be ineffectual.

They can be responsible for their actions as to doors, etc. Things they set up.

Off the top of my head - duh - sue them for not requiring all patrons to carry ARs with AP rounds in case a rampage killer shows up. Does that make sense?

Also, if you sue:

1. You will have find a lawyer to take the case on contingency and our folks said they wouldn't go near it.

2. A large chain and insurance company can put you in court for years. Can you handle that? It isn't some megamillions class action.

3. What are the punitive damage limits in CO? Even with the number killed and injured, if there is a limit - it may not be that much. You can figure out predicted income for some but that is not punitive. Punitive is the megabucks.

Thus, as far as I can see and others please chime in, suing over not being allowed to carry - esp. if the theatre is following the law - is not viable. Easy to say in the gun store. Ask him about the upcoming UN invasion.
 
Yeah I thought he was a little crazy. And just to be clear we weren't talking about us sueing them
We were talking about a theoretical man or woman who has a cc and is injured due to not being able to carry.



I still stand by you chose to go some where that you knew you couldn't carry. It's your problem now... Short of neglect( as in this recent case of how did he get in from an exit)
 
I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and say perhaps some businesses should be sued when their victim-disarmament zones prove tragically effective. To date, there have been, what, ZERO such lawsuits? The company's insurance carrier compares the risk of being sued for prohibiting carry with the risk of being sued for permitting carry, and it's a no-brainer: No Carry = No Risk! Now, times, they are a changin'. There is now more acceptance of concealed carry, and more acknowledgement that carrying a weapon is a prudent and effective means of self-defense and crime prevention. If liability insurance carriers start having to spend big bucks to defend the actions of clients who prohibit concealed carry, they may become, at least, less hostile to the concept of not prohibiting concealed carry. If we can, through lawsuits, level the playing field to the point that companies aren't rewarded by their insurance carriers for prohibiting carry, then a lot of the "no weapons" signs will disappear.

It goes against my grain to encourage lawsuits, but in this instance, perhaps we might derive some secondary gain from such actions.
 
Alittle off topic but I do a lot of saltwater fish tanks
Many of these fish are highly aggressive.

The solution to keep the tank from killing it self?
Add more aggressive fish .

They become to busy watching their own backs to attack anyone else or are to afraid of leaving them selfs open to others while going on an attack.



Same applies to people. If a criminal knew 50 percent of those around him had guns he would be less likely to act.
 
I think gun carriers should jump at an opportunity to further their gun rights just as Obama and the gun control bunch do to try and push for more gun control. Why not fight fire with fire?
 
I don't think there has been an outcome yet on this but it is in a similar avenue.

Boyd's gaming group specifically posts no firearms signs at their properties. Locally(I live in Las Vegas) this kind of issue would be complicated by the fact that those signs have no force of law. They can only tell you to leave if they discover you have a firearm, not legally compel you to be disarmed with a sign.

In general, I think the businesses are removed from liability, but as we can see there was at least one lawyer willing to take on a case of this nature.
 
A couple of rebuttals here.

First off, in most localities, there is no acknowledged right to carry. It is a permitted privilege. "People carrying guns" are not a protected class. While there are laws preventing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, or physical handicap, there's nothing prohibiting denial of service on account of someone with a gun. That's a big impediment to lawsuits.

Second, even if (and that's a big "if") you could get a lawyer to bring litigation, a judge would balance the proprietor's property rights against a licensed privilege and take little time at all to find in the proprietor's favor.

Third, there's the specter of corporate liability. The gun control crowd beat us to the punch on this in the 1980's, and in most corporations, it's gospel: guns equal potential violence. This is why many employers refuse to let their employees carry. They've been told that an armed employee is a potential threat, and should he shoot someone out of anger or miscalculation, the subsequent litigation could bankrupt the company. That's the prevailing doctrine.

While the idea of a lawsuit along the lines of the OP may carry some philosophical satisfaction, it'll never pan out in real life.
 
My take is that there will be wrongful death lawsuits filed against the criminal and the theater. One thing is for sure, there will be lawsuits filed. The theater is responsible for your safety while you are in it.

As far as the door I thought they said he went out the emergency door, got all his stuff and then came back in the same emergency door and opened fire. I know they said the rifle had a 100 round drum magazine and it jammed, he threw it down and started firing again with either a hand gun or shot gun.

A guy I know went into a bar for a cold beer and another patron punched him in his face and broke his nose and broke off a tooth, he sued the bar and received all his medical bills and a settlement for pain and suffering. He didn't even get his beer yet, no words, no argument, the guy just sucker punched him and then walked out.
 
As one of the local "gun-friendly lawyers", Glenn's pretty much spot on.

[1] In general, a business will not be held responsible for the criminal acts of a third party. The few times in which a business has been held liable, there have been some unique circumstances, e. g., known special risks such as a business open late in a bad part of town that has already had a number of incidents and has thereafter failed to do anything at all.

[2] To even get close to getting anywhere with a business that has a "no guns" policy, you will need to show that (1) some honest person there would have had his gun if it were not for the "no guns" policy; and (2) he would have fixed things if he had his gun. If the situation involves a well armed gunman in body armor, in a large, dark, crowded room, with obscuring smoke and in the midst a bunch of panicking people, it would be a real tough sell to convince a judge that a marginally trained (if that) guy with his trusty J-Frame would be able to do any good.
 
A guy I know went into a bar for a cold beer and another patron punched him in his face and broke his nose and broke off a tooth, he sued the bar and received all his medical bills and a settlement for pain and suffering. He didn't even get his beer yet, no words, no argument, the guy just sucker punched him and then walked out.
Click to expand...

There's either more to this story, or the bar owner had the world's worst lawyer. My suspicion is that the assailant had been "overserved" while at the bar, and that the violent outburst was something that the bar employees probably saw coming. Bars *have* been found liable for the actions of a third party if the bar's employees continue to serve someone who's already visibly intoxicated and/or belligerent.
 
ScottRiqui said:
There's either more to this story, or the bar owner had the world's worst lawyer. My suspicion is that the assailant had been "overserved" while at the bar, and that the violent outburst was something that the bar employees probably saw coming....
Click to expand...
I agree. When a business gets tagged for something a third party does, there's some kind of back story. A bar can have problems if it serves someone who is obviously intoxicated or who is known to be a problem. A while ago, a Denny's had to pay as a result of a late night incident; but there had been prior incidents, so it was on notice that its late hours presented special risks.
 
Originally Posted by ScottRiqui
There's either more to this story, or the bar owner had the world's worst lawyer. My suspicion is that the assailant had been "overserved" while at the bar, and that the violent outburst was something that the bar employees probably saw coming....
I agree. When a business gets tagged for something a third party does, there's some kind of back story. A bar can have problems if it serves someone who is obviously intoxicated or who is known to be a problem. A while ago, a Denny's had to pay as a result of a late night incident; but there had been prior incidents, so it was on notice that its late hours presented special risks.
__________________
Click to expand...

The guy was obviously drunk already and the bar maid kept serving him. There was no court, the bar owner settled the day before the court date. He didn't get as much as he was seeking but they reached an agreement with both lawyers. He got all his medical paid for and I believe around 8000.00 for his pain and suffering. He also had witnesses that were going to testify that the guy had been in fights there before and they kept allowing him in. They were also going to testify that he did not in any way provoke the attack.
 
rebs said:
The guy was obviously drunk already and the bar maid kept serving him. ... He also had witnesses that were going to testify that the guy had been in fights there before and they kept allowing him in. ...
Click to expand...
Those are the kinds of things that can result in liability for a business. And the bar settled, because with that kind of evidence it was almost certain to get found liable in court.

But the point is that without those sorts of special factors, a business will not be liable for the criminal acts of third parties.
 
I think gun carriers should jump at an opportunity to further their gun rights just as Obama and the gun control bunch do to try and push for more gun control. Why not fight fire with fire?
Posted from above-- ABSOLUTELY!!!!

get some good articles on this and send to all your 'friends' esp those who are anti-rights/guns pointing out back in April in AURORA ONE person was killed in a church. No others cause the shooter was shot by someone carrying in the church.

Do it tonight!! Ill look for the article I had, probably blew it off.

Dont waste a tragedy-make good use of it1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top