« A thought on the indictment of Rick Perry | Main | Huffington Post reporter shows his knowledge of guns »
That's strange. The theater had put up "no guns allowed" signs, after all
Court allows suit against Aurora theater, based on allegations of inadequate security. The court notes that it is only saying the issue is sufficiently disputed to require going to trial, not that either side might necessarily win.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
The court doesn't mention "no guns" signs in its ruling - does that mean anything?
I have read discussion of whether the theater should have done what it did in other, similar circumstances, namely hire more armed guards. Nothing about stripping the public of our right to self defense then not protecting us (which I and my lawyer husband both think would be a strong case).
Do you think the "no guns" sign will come up at all in the suit?
bookmoth
Consider pressing State legislatures for a law prescribing the liability for a business that allows/forbids employees and customers to be armed on its premises. I think this is an important opaque area. It matters less what law a legislature adopts; either way, the public knows where it stands.
Employees and customers are at risk if a fellow-employee/customer performs a violent act on the business's premises. Is it the business's duty to provide adequate security? If it is the business's duty then is it liable for damages? To what standard of care to prevent?
If the business permits employees or customers to bear arms on its premises then should it be relieved of it's liability? Such a business effectively tells its employees and customers that the world is dangerous and the business is not offering any sanctuary against that danger. You are on your own to protect yourself. If you neglect to make adequate provision - whether in a public place or on our business premises - the consequences are for you to bear alone.
If the business forbids employees or customers to bear arms on its premises then it assumes some liability at some level of culpability to be determined by the legislature. Any such business so forbidding should find it prudent to erect barriers to protect its employees and hire armed guards; or, carry liability insurance.
If an armed employee injures a customer or an assailant, it seems to me that he is acting within/outside the scope of his responsibility. If his assigned duty is to provide security then the employer is liable for his misdeed.
If her assigned duty is OTHER than to provide security then she is presumed to act on her own account to protect her own life. Her employer should be relieved of liability. A legislature may decide otherwise; it might deem a non-security employee to impose a liability on the business if she bears arms on premises. Very well, then the business can shape its policies accordingly.
Perhaps a legislature will adopt a poler law; either freeing businesses from any liability; or, making businesses absolutely liable. That would be a step forward. Businesses could adjust their pricing in accordance with their known contingent liability; and, set their policies to minimize their expense. Customers could choose to adapt, bearing arms if they can or avoiding risky places and times.
My expectation is that most legislatures would adopt a law protecting businesses. The public - employees and customers alike - would then be on-notice that they are on-their-own and could make a decision to seek employment, or goods/services, at those businesses whose policies are congruent with their own take on safe practices.
In any case, we all would know the rules-of-liability under which we are making our choices.