Employers Requiring The Right to Search Your Vehicle

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

 

The class of persons designated as invitees includes those who have come upon the land at the express or implied invitation of a possessor for the purpose of transacting some business within the scope of the invitation. They are sometimes called business visitors[i]. The duty of exercising ordinary care for the safety of business visitors may require one who invites the public to his/her premises to purchase goods to take measures different from those required of one inviting others to his/her private residence. An invitee must show that s/he was impliedly invited upon the premises by some allurement or inducement held out by the owner or person in control with intention and design[ii]. An invitee is entitled to expect that a possessor will exercise reasonable care to make the land safe for the invitee’s entry, or for his/her use[iii].

 

A land owner is required to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition and has a duty to exercise due care to protect invitees from conditions that can result in injury. Whereas, a land owner has no duty to protect invitees from open and obvious dangers[iv]. However, even if a danger is open and obvious, a landowner owner may still owe a duty to protect an invitee if the risk of harm remains unreasonable.

A possessor owes an additional duty towards an invitee to exercise reasonable care to make the land safe for the reception of his/her invitee, or ascertain the actual condition of the land so that by warning the invitee, the possessor may give the invitee an opportunity to decide intelligently whether or not to accept the invitation or permission[v]. However, the duty imposed on a possessor of premises is to warn of the dangerous condition or to make the premises safe and not to make them safe by erecting a barrier[vi]. It is to be noted that there is no duty to warn an invitee against patent or obvious conditions which are not dangerous per se[vii].

It is to be noted that although there is no obligation to warn of a fully obvious condition, the possessor still may have a duty to protect an invitee against foreseeable dangerous conditions. Thus, the open and obvious doctrine does not relieve an invitor of his/her general duty of reasonable care[viii]. In other words, an invitee who is aware of a dangerous condition cannot impose liability on the possessor of property[ix].

However, an occupant of a premise is not an insurer of the safety of an invitee. An invitee is not protected against all hazards nor relieved of all duty to care for his/her own safety. The duty of an occupant to protect is reduced to the extent that a duty of self protection rests on the invitee. The occupant has no duty to protect an invitee against dangers known to the invitee or which are so obvious that it is reasonable to expect s/he will discover them and protect himself/herself[x]. Moreover, if an owner and the invitee are equally aware of the dangerous condition and the invitee voluntarily exposes himself/herself to the hazard, then the owner will not be liable[xi]. An owner or occupant of private premises incurs no liability for minor imperfections which are commonly encountered and which are not unreasonably dangerous[xii].

However, the duty to keep premises safe for invitees applies to defects or conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares, pitfalls that are not known to an invitee, and would not be observed by him/her in the exercise of ordinary care. A possessor does not have any duty to reconstruct or alter the premises so as to obviate known and obvious dangers[xiii].

[i] Scheibel v. Lipton, 156 Ohio St. 308 (Ohio 1951).

[ii] Zaia v. “Italia” Societa Anonyma di Navigazione, 324 Mass. 547 (Mass. 1949).

[iii] Argo v. Goodstein, 438 Pa. 468 (Pa. 1970).

[iv] Modzelewski V. Sears Roebuck & Co., 1998 Mich. App. Lexis 2181 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 1998).

[v] Dalton v. Steiden Stores, Inc., 277 Ky. 179 (Ky. 1939).

[vi] Harbourn v. Katz Drug Co., 318 S.W.2d 226 (Mo. 1958).

[vii] Miami Coin-O-Wash, Inc. v. McGough, 195 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1967)

[viii].Modzelewski V. Sears Roebuck & Co., 1998 Mich. App. Lexis 2181 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 1998).

[ix] Harbourn v. Katz Drug Co., 318 S.W.2d 226 (Mo. 1958).

[x] Blair v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction, 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 649 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1989).

[xi] Id.

[xii] Helms v. American Legion, 5 Ohio St. 2d 60 (Ohio 1966).

[xiii] Harbourn v. Katz Drug Co., 318 S.W.2d 226 (Mo. 1958).

[Worriedman]

Dolomite, the Parking Lot Bills treated PERSONAL private property differently from BUSINESS private property.  No one has ever suggested that where you live is the same as a store where you invite people in to shop, or a place of work where you invite people in to provide labor for you. (farms were included in the exempted type of properties.)

[Guest carter]

Anyone can sue. I can sue a member here for not putting a period at the end of a sentence in their post. It does not mean they will win. Please define "adequate".

 

So let me get this straight. We are going to blame someone other than the person who committed the crime? If you invite me over and while I walk across your yard I get hit by a car driven by a drunk driver, is it your fault? Under your way of thinking it sure is because you didn't put up barriers to provide me with "adequate" protection from being run over or allow me to put up barriers for my own protection.

 

I have actually wrote my representatives requesting property owners assume liability if they don't allow a person to carry when a crime could have been prevented through the use of a firearm. I have even wrote in support of the parking lot bill. And I believed in both very strongly (you are more than welcome to go search because I have posted my support here). Then several on here took it as meaning if they were executing their Second Amendment right they could come on anyone's property they wanted. One even said he could come on my property at anytime he wanted and do anything he wanted with my property because his Second Amendment right trumped my rights as a private property owner. That is when I decided to side with property owners 100% of the time. No one is going to come onto my property and do something I do not allow them to do.

 

If you don't like the conditions set forth by the property owner then don't go on the property. And if you do then you assume the risks of following the conditions set forth by the property owners.

 

Laws dictate how we as private entities interact, not amendments.

 

Dolomite

 

if a business has a spill and you slip and fall who's fault is it?... if my employer wants to search my vehicle he better give a good reason on his acts... he's creating a huge liability for the company, him self, and the people acting out the search...

 

i use to work at a military base... they had contract security there...and did random vehicle searches at the front gate... there was a sign stating that when you drove in...

 

and as far as proper grammar, i correct your post in my quote :) lol amendment has one M not two 

 

and not just anyone can go on your property... especially if you have no trespassing signs up... CALL THA LAW!

if you don't want them there they are trespassing

Edited January 15, 2013 by carter

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

[Guest carter]

also the vehicle has to be on there property i assume. lol so park off there property if there is such an issue with it...

[Dolomite_supafly]

Being served too hot of coffee and knowingly having a substance on the property are the property owners fault. Having an outside entity cause damage to guest on their property is NOT the property owner's fault. If you were in a shop or at your place of enployment and someone did something that was out of the property owner's control how can that be the property owner's fault? I am for holding the person who is actually responsible.

 

It is like having a meteorite fall out of the sky while you stood in Walmart and then saying it was Walmart's fault for not providing "adequate" protection against meteorties.

 

I get the gun in your car issue, I truly get it. I do believe that you have the right to have a gun, or any item, in your car on the employer's property. But on the same token I believe the employer should be able to fire you if he chooses. Be if he suspects you have a firearm, against his wishes, or anything else he doesn't agree with.

 

 

Dolomite

[E4 No More]

 
Not on private property. A private property owner or their agent can dictate what you say, and how you say it, while on their property.
 
A private property owner can also set conditions on what you can and cannot do while on their property not related to speech. As a condition of being on their private property the owner or agent can mandate you wear a pink tutu and carry a Nerf gun for self defense. You have no right to do anything on private property unless the owner or agent allow you to.
 
It is the property owner, not you, that determines you to say or do what you want on their property. And if you don't follow it you will be asked to leave and if you do not you will be arrested.
 
The Ammendments are there to protect you from abuses by the government. They are not there to protect you from private entities like private property owners.
 
Dolomite

being asked to leave is NOT the same thing as controlling what you say. I can say whatever the heck I want as long as it's not disturbing the peace. They can tell me to leave and I can say whatever I want as I leave. The only one that can order you to shut up is a judge, and that is unconstitutional.

[RobertNashville]

 
Not on private property. A private property owner or their agent can dictate what you say, and how you say it, while on their property.

 

A private property owner can also set conditions on what you can and cannot do while on their property not related to speech. As a condition of being on their private property the owner or agent can mandate you wear a pink tutu and carry a Nerf gun for self defense. You have no right to do anything on private property unless the owner or agent allow you to.

 

It is the property owner, not you, that determines you to say or do what you want on their property. And if you don't follow it you will be asked to leave and if you do not you will be arrested.

 

The Ammendments are there to protect you from abuses by the government. They are not there to protect you from private entities like private property owners.

 

Dolomite

There is a significant difference, recognized by courts at all levels and for many, many decades between property used for private purposes and property used for business/commercial/public purposes (i.e. where the public, including employees, are invited and allowed to be). A property owner (or their agent) is not above the constitution...they are allowed a lot of latitude to be sure but there is zero in the Constitution that prevents regulation of property (used for private purposes or not) other than the takings clause...businesses in other states that have sued where these laws have been enacted have been losing most of those battles; mostly because they have been unable to show how these laws violate the takings clause.

Yes, they may be able to dictate a pink tutu...for a while...until someone sues and wins (and the plaintiff likely will win unless the business can substantiate an actual business need/reason for such a requirement).

Maybe it's just some sort of power play going on with these businesses or maybe it's a precised liability issue but the businesses opposed to this legislation have had a damn difficult time coming up with any rational or Constitutional argument regarding why they should have the power to dictate the contents of a vehicle parked in a parking lot (so long as the contents are legal for the vehicle owner to own/transport) and unless they can come up with such an argument I'd say this legislation has a good chance of being passed in Tennessee and other states.

Edited January 16, 2013 by RobertNashville