restaurants that post...

[Guest justme]

If a restaurant posts its property as to prohibit firearms per Tennessee Code..

Is that same restaurant then legally responsible for the safety of its patrons? Meaning--if any of the patrons are injured by a criminal who comes into the building--can the restaurant be held financially responsible for any injuries received?

I'm seeing stories about restaurants beginning to post---if they do, they should have to be financially liable for any injuries received while a person is on their property.

[Guest bkelm18]

If a restaurant posts its property as to prohibit firearms per Tennessee Code..

Is that same restaurant then legally responsible for the safety of its patrons? Meaning--if any of the patrons are injured by a criminal who comes into the building--can the restaurant be held financially responsible for any injuries received? Nope.

I'm seeing stories about restaurants beginning to post---if they do, they should have to be financially liable for any injuries received while a person is on their property. Been discussed before, not likely to happen.

.

[Guest rabidrhino]

Bkelm18 is right. There is likely no liability for the restaurant whether there is a sign posted or not. Of course a restaurant owner could be hauled into court and have to spend dollars on legal fees.

[Guest justme]

Bkelm18 is right. There is likely no liability for the restaurant whether there is a sign posted or not. Of course a restaurant owner could be hauled into court and have to spend dollars on legal fees.

Yes, but if you did not win the case--you would have to pay their reasonable attorney fees as well as court costs...

[dunndw]

Wasn't there a case where WalMart was sued due to lack of security in their parking lots and the citizen won?

[Guest bkelm18]

Wasn't there a case where WalMart was sued due to lack of security in their parking lots and the citizen won?

IIRC, there are certain things that businesses have to do in regards to the security/safety of the their patrons, allowing HCPs is not one of them.

[Guest justme]

IIRC, there are certain things that businesses have to do in regards to the security/safety of the their patrons, allowing HCPs is not one of them.

and it would seem to me--again using common sense here, that if business owners intentionally and willfully disarm the people who come into their business--if they then fail to take adequate measures to provide for the peoples safety--"security guard", or so on--then it would seem to me that the business would be liable.

[Garufa]

Seems to me that the restaurants I've heard about posting are concerned about liability.

So, if one was an HCP holder and could not defend oneself if the hit the fan, would they be liable then?

[Fallguy]

Wasn't there a case where WalMart was sued due to lack of security in their parking lots and the citizen won?

IIRC, there are certain things that businesses have to do in regards to the security/safety of the their patrons, allowing HCPs is not one of them.

Also the main reason the citizen won the suit was, there had been other incidents in the parking lot or at least close. So the court said it "was a known danger" and they didn't nothing to correct the problem and/or protect their customers.

You can see the ruling here

But a place has no duty to protect you against the "general problems" of society.

So...if patrons of a place had been mugged 3-4 times and the owner did nothing to correct the problem or protect you and something happened you'd have a pretty good case, but in general....No.

[DaveTN]

Seems to me that the restaurants I've heard about posting are concerned about liability.

So, if one was an HCP holder and could not defend oneself if the hit the fan, would they be liable then?

I think it would come down to the fact that you can choose to enter or not. Also it has been ruled that law enforcement can’t he held liable for your protection, so I doubt a business would be.

I would guess that there have been people that have lost family members in places where guns are banned that have tried to file suit. But since those are civil cases and not criminal they may be hard for us to find.

IMHO the biggest single issue we should be addressing (concerning where we can carry) is totally removing any liability that a business owner would have in the case of a shooting, simply because it was in their building.

[Tim Nunan]

As stated in another forum the liability issue is a strawman; it is about the money and not having the cover of state law to hid behind.

[chipperi]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Libby's restaurant that got the big Carry push going in Texas get sued and lost. I believe the woman was allowed to carry but Libby's was posted, so she had to watch both her parents die. She sued because her right to defend herself and her family was denied by the restaurant. I believe she won.

[DaveTN]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Libby's restaurant that got the big Carry push going in Texas get sued and lost. I believe the woman was allowed to carry but Libby's was posted, so she had to watch both her parents die. She sued because her right to defend herself and her family was denied by the restaurant. I believe she won.

Texas law did not allow concealed carry at the time. Her right to defend herself was denied by the state.

The woman you are thinking of is Suzanna Gratia Hupp.

I don’t know if anyone sued the restaurant or not. If they did and won it would give credence to restaurant owners concerns about liability.

[Smith]

I'm thinking there would have to be some test cases first since this is a relatively new issue. My thinking is it could go either way in the current climate. The Walmart incident was not a good gauge becasue as stated it was a "known" issue. Would be interesting to see.

[wjh2657]

One of the reasons that banks did away with armed guards was the court rulings that no business has a responsibility to protect its customers or employees from outside ( non-employee) armed attack. No business must protect you from outside attack. Think about it. The police do not have to protect you from attack (USSC Decisions) they have only to investigate after the attack and arrest culprits, if they find any. "Serve and Protect" is an empty motto. Given, cops die every day trying to do just that and every LEO I know considers it his duty to protect the public. But there is no legal requirement for them to do so. You cannot sue the police for not protecting you! ( That may be a surprise to many!)If you cannot hold the police responsible for your protection , how could you hold a business responsible? The only thing they can get in trouble with is something harming you because of their actions or negligence in following established ordnances.

If a bad guy shoots you in an establishment, you cannot charge them because they let him in, you have to charge the BG.

At least this is the Criminal Law. I am sure everybody is aware that Civil law lets you sue for anything you want. You may even win a lawsuit against the BG's third grade teacher because she didn't teach him better manners, if the jury is crazy enough to go along with it. (There is no rhyme or reason, nor boundaries, to civil law! You cannot possibly cover all of the bases for civil law, it depends on what the jurors were smoking or sniffing that morning. If I sound skeptical, I've served on three civil trial juries and they were zoos!)

Edited July 15, 2009 by wjh2657

[Fallguy]

A property owner can be held liable if there is a "known danger" and they don't do anything to protect you.

There is a TN case on this that I don't have the ability to link to at the moment.

But I agree that no property owner has a duty to protect you from any general danger. Also if you enter a posted establisment and disarm on your own accord you have no standing, because you did not have to go in.

[Guest beefcakeb0]

its called premise liability

[wjh2657]

A property owner can be held liable if there is a "known danger" and they don't do anything to protect you.

There is a TN case on this that I don't have the ability to link to at the moment.

But I agree that no property owner has a duty to protect you from any general danger. Also if you enter a posted establisment and disarm on your own accord you have no standing, because you did not have to go in.

Best known as the "feets don't fail me now" option! If you already know it is a no gun zone and you enter unarmed you have indicated that you accept the consequences. If you can't accept the consequences, don't enter! I make that decision from time to time (depends on how good the food is or who I am with at the time) but I do it knowing that I am setting myself up for the risk.

I have also learned with age that I cannot have my own way all of the time.This is the big trap of individual rights: they invariably conflict with somebody else's rights. As a school teacher (retired now) I had to surrender almost every right I had to defend and uphold the students' rights. It went with the territory. As a Marine for 30 years, I did give up just about every right I had to protect other people's rights. We do have to live together, discretion is not cowardice, it is just being careful. I CC all of the time and I obey the law if it tells me that I have to go somewhere unarmed. I don't like it but I follow the law. I have to weigh every day whether having a gun on me at that moment is more important than getting something done. Mailing a package to my grandchildren is usually going to be more important to me than whether or not the 642 is in my pocket at that moment! I don't expect the Post Office to have a squad of Marines there to guard me while I mail the package!

Hey life's a bitch, sometimes you have to let the other kids play too, live with it.

[midtennchip]

A property owner can be held liable if there is a "known danger" and they don't do anything to protect you.

There is a TN case on this that I don't have the ability to link to at the moment.

But I agree that no property owner has a duty to protect you from any general danger. Also if you enter a posted establisment and disarm on your own accord you have no standing, because you did not have to go in.

I think the case you are looking for is McClung v. Delta Square, et al. Dorothy McClung was abducted at gunpoint in the parking lot of Wal-Mart in Delta Square. The TN Supreme Court ruled that the incident was reasonably foreseeable and that Wal-Mart (and the real estate partnership that owned Delta Square) had a duty to protect Mrs. McClung. The case is available here:

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/270/1007/545383/

With that in mind, I do believe, under certain circumstances, that an establishment that posts the no guns sign could be held liable for crime on its premises. But, just the fact that it posted would not be enough. It might be a factor, but the criminal act itself would have to be reasonably foreseeable. In McClung, the court noted the extreme number of crimes that occurred in the parking lot or adjacent to it in the 17 months leading up to the crime. Wal-Mart provided no security. As a result, Wal-Mart breached its duty to Mrs. McClung.

If a restaurant in a high crime area posts the notice, it may very well be setting itself up for a premises liability claim. But, it will take more than just the sign to get to that result. Someone walking into the establishment does not just assume the risk. Just because the establishment can reasonably foresee the problem doesn't mean the patron knows (and therefore has assumed) that risk. Lots of factors.

[Fallguy]

I think the case you are looking for is McClung v. Delta Square, et al. Dorothy McClung was abducted at gunpoint in the parking lot of Wal-Mart in Delta Square. The TN Supreme Court ruled that the incident was reasonably foreseeable and that Wal-Mart (and the real estate partnership that owned Delta Square) had a duty to protect Mrs. McClung. The case is available here:

Roger L. Mcclung, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., Defendant-appellee - 270 F.3d 1007 - Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions

With that in mind, I do believe, under certain circumstances, that an establishment that posts the no guns sign could be held liable for crime on its premises. But, just the fact that it posted would not be enough. It might be a factor, but the criminal act itself would have to be reasonably foreseeable. In McClung, the court noted the extreme number of crimes that occurred in the parking lot or adjacent to it in the 17 months leading up to the crime. Wal-Mart provided no security. As a result, Wal-Mart breached its duty to Mrs. McClung.

If a restaurant in a high crime area posts the notice, it may very well be setting itself up for a premises liability claim. But, it will take more than just the sign to get to that result. Someone walking into the establishment does not just assume the risk. Just because the establishment can reasonably foresee the problem doesn't mean the patron knows (and therefore has assumed) that risk. Lots of factors.

That is the case...

...and I agree that just a posting is not enough for a place to be held liable. Also that if place post (or even not in some cases) but doesn't do anything to protect you from a known or forseeable danger, they could be held liable.