Are Restaurant Owners Liable with new TN laws?

[Guest webster1305]

New to forum. I was wondering if anyone knows (and where I can find this) if restaurant owners with new TN gun law would be liable if someone was shot in their establishment? Thanks!

[Guest bkelm18]

No, they would not be held liable. As it should be, IMO. However I would like to see legislation that would make them immune to legal action if an HCP holder did have to shoot somebody in their business. I think that would help push a few more businesses over to our side.

[LagerHead]

No, they would not be held liable. As it should be, IMO. However I would like to see legislation that would make them immune to legal action if an HCP holder did have to shoot somebody in their business. I think that would help push a few more businesses over to our side.

If nothing else it would remove that excuse from their arsenal.

[Guest webster1305]

I agree, the restaurant owners do not want to end up in the middle of some court case. They would probably be more welcome to the idea if they had more individual immunity

[Fallguy]

The more correct answer is the new law has not changed their liability.

As far as what they are or are not liable for, may be up to a jury.

[jaysouth]

I am trying to figure out what liability a business has if all applicable laws are being followed?

The handwringing soccer moms and some restaurant owners are concerned about the "liability" that they will have if someone legally carries on their premises.

Someone please explain what liability they are exposed to if they do not post or do post.

If a legal carrier leaves their piece at home and enters a posted premise and is injured because they could not defend themselves, a good lawyer could convince a jury that the cause of the injury was posting of 'no firearms' and that the owner who posted the premises is responsible for remedy.

[Fallguy]

If a legal carrier leaves their piece at home and enters a posted premise and is injured because they could not defend themselves, a good lawyer could convince a jury that the cause of the injury was posting of 'no firearms' and that the owner who posted the premises is responsible for remedy.

I think it would be hard, but I don't disagree. But the trouble is the flipside. A good lawyer might could argue if an innocent 3rd party is injured by a HCP holder in shooting, the business may be liable because a they didn't post when they could have. Remember even the 39-11-622 doesn't protect you from damages to an innocent part in justifiable shooting.

[Smith]

As one in the business, strictly speaking no. However, no matter what happens on the property we are probably going to get sued and then it becomes a fine print case between a gold digging lawyer, the insurance company, and us.

[Guest HexHead]

As one in the business, strictly speaking no. However, no matter what happens on the property we are probably going to get sued and then it becomes a fine print case between a gold digging lawyer, the insurance company, and us.

The restaurant/bar will always be in the middle, regardless of the circumstances since they are the deep pockets. That's why they have liability insurance.

[Smith]

The restaurant/bar will always be in the middle, regardless of the circumstances since they are the deep pockets. That's why they have liability insurance.

Deep pockets?! If by that you mean high overhead and extremely low margins then yeah. They have liability insurance becasue it would destroy them personally and professionally without it.

[Guest mustangdave]

The restaurant/bar will always be in the middle, regardless of the circumstances since they are the deep pockets. That's why they have liability insurance.

AND...they way I've been hearing it....a number of INSURANCE carriers have been telling these restaurants...IF YOU DON"T POST...We WILL NOT INSURE YOU

[Smith]

I'd sure like to see that letter. If they are indeed doing that, they would be opening themselves up to all kinds of lawsuits.

[JayC]

The more correct answer is the new law has not changed their liability.

As far as what they are or are not liable for, may be up to a jury.

+1 while there currently isn't case law on point, there are similar cases which have allowed the question to go to the jury, so it's very likely that you'd be allowed to argue that posting and not providing the needed security was a form of negligence to a jury.

[Guest db99wj]

AND...they way I've been hearing it....a number of INSURANCE carriers have been telling these restaurants...IF YOU DON"T POST...We WILL NOT INSURE YOU

Who? I disagree. I have been told the complete opposite. Rates are no different in other states due to this type of legislation. Also was told that for the insurance companies to start raising rates on something like this is if claims start coming in, not just a few here and there, a bunch.

Rates are determined by statistical probability, there has to be numbers, to help them determine rates. There are no statistics on permit holders shooting up places, then lawsuits start happening. Liability is based on measurable data. There is none there nor will there be any that can be measured with statistical accuracy.

[Guest 270win]

The restaurant owners' liability would not change with the passage of this new law. People have been illegally carry handguns and other sorts of weapons in establishments before July 14th and are continuing to do so now. The big deal for someone with an ABC license (whatever they are called in TN...not a native) is a patron being served too much liquor and then driving off drunk and either hurting/killing themselves and/or someone else. Another is the serving to minors. I have seen that happen several times in the Little Rock area and it has caused restaurants to lose liquor licenses from the ABC board on top of being sued. I'd honestly rather have a liquor/package store than a restaurant that serves alcohol from a liability standpoint. About the only time i've seen liquor stores get in trouble is selling to minors. Kind of hard for someone to get trashed and drive when they can't drink inside the liquor store.

[DaveTN]

I am trying to figure out what liability a business has if all applicable laws are being followed?

The handwringing soccer moms and some restaurant owners are concerned about the "liability" that they will have if someone legally carries on their premises.

Someone please explain what liability they are exposed to if they do not post or do post.

If a legal carrier leaves their piece at home and enters a posted premise and is injured because they could not defend themselves, a good lawyer could convince a jury that the cause of the injury was posting of 'no firearms' and that the owner who posted the premises is responsible for remedy.

They are the deep pockets, the payday. Chances are the shooter doesn’t have enough property for both the Attorney and the person that got shot to get a big check.

They don’t have to do anything wrong to find themselves having to pay large sums of money to defend themselves. The intent of the dirt bag attorney filing the case may not be to get a huge settlement, but just a few thousand to settle instead of paying for a lawsuit. Even if they successfully defend themselves their attorneys get paid.

Even though it may not protect them, some (if not most) feel that by banning guns they will limit any award a jury might decide to hand down.

Carrying guns in Tennessee is illegal; a citizen has no right to carry a gun. Therefore banning them is not going to cause them a problem. It also allows their insurance companies to refuse to insure them if they like.

The “Restaurant Carry†bill in Tennessee was tuned into “Guns in Barsâ€. It was done by pro gun groups and now we are going to have to live with the fallout. Some of us predicted this a long time ago.

We can all talk about the fact that the owners should not have to go to court if there is a shooting in their business that they had no involvement in; but they need legislation stating that.

We are a “Special Group†and just like those that whine about cops being a “special group†the public is not supportive of us. If you don’t think that is true look at what just happened with park carry. Our legislators are “pro Gunâ€, but most of the public is either against or indifferent to allowing anything that does not include them.

No one has the right to tell a business owner how to run his business. Unless of course we all are going to come together and pay the lawyer bills when they are sued.

[Guest 3pugguy]

The more correct answer is the new law has not changed their liability.

As far as what they are or are not liable for, may be up to a jury.

Well stated (as is your usual MO).

[Guest HexHead]

AND...they way I've been hearing it....a number of INSURANCE carriers have been telling these restaurants...IF YOU DON"T POST...We WILL NOT INSURE YOU

That's a flat out lie by those telling you that.

[Guest db99wj]

Well stated (as is your usual MO).

No crap, pisses me off the way he does that:D:p

[Guest dizzielizzie]

My biggest concern will always be the misinterpretation of the new "restaurant carry" bill and someone who doesn't know the law will things for the HCP holder.

But I'll be happily suprised if a business supports us and posts a "you gotta have a permit to carry in here" type sign, even noting if you carry you can't drink. This will get people to start asking the right questions instead of freaking out every time one mentions the word gun.

The definition of "restaurant" needs to be clearly established by the state; an establishment that is clearly a bar I can see them not wanting guns, because most will go there to have a drink. I say most because I know there are responsible people out there who go to a bar to socialize or as a designated driver (and thus should get all the free non-alcoholic beverage they want.)

However, a lot of people frequent restaurants - to eat. The restaurant serves alcohol as an added revenue. And I do disagree they shouldn't discriminate against a permitted carrier.

If the insurance companies are telling them gun=no insurance, then sooner or later a pro-gun restaurant owner will make a stink. Business owners are allowed by law to have a gun for their own self-defense purpose in their business, and this totally goes against their rights.

[wjh2657]

Criminal law: No. They can't be held responsible for an outsider's actions. They are liable only for injuries due to their own equipment inside their own property and actions of their employees. What a customer may do is no their responsibility.

Civil Law: They can be sued for anything and lose. You can be sued by a hit and run driver because driving over your body screwed up his shock absorbers! And you could lose your shirt in the process: depends solely on the jury. There are really no hard and fast rules in a civil case. The best BS story wins the prize. Posting would give an owner one more "point" in his favor for the story. Thinking that through, it unfortuately makes good "litigation sense" to post!

We can win this battle by law but we lose it in the real world of civil courts and business.

[Guest HexHead]

The definition of "restaurant" needs to be clearly established by the state;

Seems to me that's exactly what they did do in HB 0962...

( As used in this subdivision ©(3), “restaurant†means any public

place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place

where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, such

place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room

equipment, having employed therein a sufficient number and kind of employees

to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. At least one (1) meal per

day shall be served at least five (5) days a week, with the exception of holidays,

vacations and periods of redecorating, and the serving of such meals shall be the

principal business conducted.