Recourse Is At Hand! Maybe.

[CelticRoots]

From the Tennessee General Assembly website:

 

 

SB 1801 by *Gresham. (HB 2180 by *Rich.)

Handgun Permits - As introduced, gives a handgun permit holder who is injured on or in the property of a business entity that prohibits firearms a civil cause of action against the entity if the proximate cause of the injury was that the firearm ban prevented the person from adequately exercising the right of self-defense. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

Fiscal Summary

NOT SIGNIFICANT

Bill Summary

This bill creates a cause of action against a business entity that prohibits the possession of weapons on the premises of its property or in its buildings, for a person authorized to carry a handgun who is injured on or in such property, if the proximate cause of the injury was that the posting of the property prevented the person from adequately exercising the right of self-defense. This bill will not affect any other cause of action the person may have against a business entity for the injury, death or property damage that is based on the negligence or other tortious conduct by the business entity. 

This bill defines a "business entity" as a sole proprietor, any legal entity organized under the laws of this state, or any legal entity registered with the secretary of state. This definition does not include this state or its political subdivisions. 

This bill will apply to applicable injuries occurring on or after July 1, 2014. 

Time to write your legislators, especially any who may be members of the state Senate Judicial Committee which is the current entity reviewing this bill.

[Garufa]

That bill is dead and the current legislature has adjourned.

[Worriedman]

Was never put on "Notice" by the sponsor, died from lack of support.

 

Session is over by the way.

[E4 No More]

Although it's EXACTLY what should be made into law, but are businesses currently protected from such a suit? Employees are locked into Workers' Compensation legislation.

[CelticRoots]

Oh well. Saw it on the Leg. site and had hopes. Forgot the bit about 'death by adjournment'.

Got to push for it next go-round then. Something like this would certainly go a ways to influence the corporate suits who wish to protect us from ourselves.

[Ugly]

Are they not liable now? Should be the way I see it!

[peejman]

Bill dead and legislature adjourned not withstanding...   Give an HCP holder the right to sue after the fact?   :squint:    Yeah, that'll fix it.  :shake:

[DaveTN]

More hypocritical non-sense from legislator’s. If the state doesn’t recognize carry as a right; they can’t force it down the throat of business. (They can, but it shouldn’t hold up in court)

[Ted S.]

More hypocritical non-sense from legislator’s. If the state doesn’t recognize carry as a right; they can’t force it down the throat of business. (They can, but it shouldn’t hold up in court)

 

This wouldn't have forced it down the throat of any business. Businesses would still have a choice. Forcing it down their through would be something to the effect of mandating businesses to either permit HCP holders to carry or pay a fine in taxes for keeping their property a gun free zone.

 

If someone comes in to my yard that has no business there (especially a child), and falls into a hole that I have dug, I can guarantee you that even though it is my right to dig holes in my yard, the injured party would come after me in legal proceedings for "just" compensation of their "emotional" or physical injuries. I would probably lose out regardless of the outcome.

 

Tis the world we live in.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Ted S.

[bersaguy]

That is why I do avoid businesses posted because if I do go in one I do still carry many times except Federal building. Reason being I do not want to be faced with the same issue the young lady in Texas was. Had she had her gun with her instead of in her car the outcome may have been much different and her parents may have survived. I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 for being stupid..............jmho

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="Ugly" post="1142293" timestamp="1398356974"]Are they not liable now? Should be the way I see it![/quote] You can for certain file a civil suit. The "problem" would be its the property owner's right to decide to prohibit firearms perhaps the way to win against this would be to demonstrate that the property owner knew or contributed to the danger?

[Ugly]

You can for certain file a civil suit.The "problem" would be its the property owner's right to decide to prohibit firearmsperhaps the way to win against this would be to demonstrate that the property owner knew or contributed to the danger?

I do avoid places that don't welcome me but The way I see it is the owner decided to limit my right to protect myself.

Seems pretty logical but I do know that is where the legal system tends to be removed from, logic. Edited April 25, 2014 by Ugly

[Oh Shoot]

I do avoid places that don't welcome me but The way I see it is the owner decided to limit my right to protect myself.

However, he did not limit your right to shop elsewhere where you can protect yourself.
 

Seems pretty logical but I do know that is where the legal system tends to be removed from, logic.

What's logical is that you are not the only person who has rights.

 

While I agree that specifically criminalizing walking past a sign is absurd, even if that were changed, the business could still prohibit hand gun carry, enforceable by threat of trespassing charge, as it can in every state AFAIK.

- OS

Edited April 25, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Ugly]

However, he did not limit your right to shop elsewhere where you can protect yourself.


What's logical is that you are not the only person who has rights. While I agree that specifically criminalizing walking past a sign is absurd, even if that were changed, the business could still prohibit hand gun carry, enforceable by threat of trespassing charge, as it can in every state AFAIK.

- OS

Very good points you make OS, That clears up any foggy idea I might have had to ever patronize against my better judgement. I think it is absurd that people think criminals follow the law and even worse is the hysteria caused by the left in order to demonize gun owners.

[E4 No More]

You can for certain file a civil suit. The "problem" would be its the property owner's right to decide to prohibit firearms perhaps the way to win against this would be to demonstrate that the property owner knew or contributed to the danger?

Of course the property owner has rights to make his/her own decision: however, decisions have consequences. Case law has been against the property owner for a long time, such as the burglar who gets injured while breaking the law. If the property owner makes a decision to prohibit the lawful carry of weapons on their property and does not supply reasonable security then they should be liable.

Edited April 25, 2014 by SWJewellTN

[DaveTN]

I learned long ago not to make a threat I could not back up. Threatening business owners with civil action in a state where carrying a gun is a crime is ridiculous at face value.

Many businesses post because of liability concerns. So now we want to tell them they are hosed either way. Can we hit ourselves in the head with a hammer some more?

I support carry and I do. But I feel the same way about this as I did about the parking lot issue; this reeks of a thug government. With the state not recognizing a right to carry, there will be a showdown with business; we will lose.

[E4 No More]

I learned long ago not to make a threat I could not back up. Threatening business owners with civil action in a state where carrying a gun is a crime is ridiculous at face value.

Many businesses post because of liability concerns. So now we want to tell them they are hosed either way. Can we hit ourselves in the head with a hammer some more?

I support carry and I do. But I feel the same way about this as I did about the parking lot issue; this reeks of a thug government. With the state not recognizing a right to carry, there will be a showdown with business; we will lose.

When I owned my business I was never asked by my insurer if I banned weapons in my business, so based on that experience I call BS. I was asked what type of security that I had on the premises and that was it. What you appear to be advocating is no responsibility for the consequences of the business owner's decision which is total BS IMHO.

[Oh Shoot]

When I owned my business I was never asked by my insurer if I banned weapons in my business, so based on that experience I call BS.....

 

Can't say whether some businesses that are muti-state and controlled from elsewhere don't post because of at least perceived liability, but pretty safe to say there hasn't been a case where culpability has been assigned to the business over any kind of shooting incident in TN -- and if there are any elsewhere in US, they must be quite low profile, as haven't noticed one.

 

So it may be an "excuse", but I don't believe it actually happens, and suspect that's not the real reason they post. I'd posit it's more that they figure they'll make more money by providing a "safe" environment than the much smaller proportion of gun toters they'll lose. So I'd opine that in most cases, it's ledger based decision more than ideological or liability avoidance -- liberals want profit too.

 

I also believe open carry forces the issue -- if these places didn't ever see a gun, they wouldn't as often post. Especially in TN, where it takes zero backbone to ban carry, as the owner/manager doesn't have to confront the person to enforce it, let alone file a complaint or testify.

 

 

- OS

Edited April 25, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[E4 No More]

Can't say whether some businesses that are muti-state and controlled from elsewhere don't post because of at least perceived liability, but pretty safe to say there hasn't been a case where culpability has been assigned to the business over any kind of shooting incident in TN -- and if there are any elsewhere in US, they must be quite low profile, as haven't noticed one.

 

So it may be an "excuse", but I don't believe it actually happens, and suspect that's not the real reason they post. I'd posit it's more that they figure they'll make more money by providing a "safe" environment than the much smaller proportion of gun toters they'll lose. So I'd opine that in most cases, it's ledger based decision more than ideological or liability avoidance -- liberals want profit too.

 

I also believe open carry forces the issue -- if these places didn't ever see a gun, they wouldn't as often post. Especially in TN, where it takes zero backbone to ban carry, as the owner/manager doesn't have to confront the person to enforce it, let alone file a complaint or testify.

 

 

- OS

Can't say as I've studied TN at all in the matter, but I submit that most cases get solved by the insurance carriers out of court: therefore, you wouldn't see a lot anyway. But since the SC has extended individual rights protections to corporations then the liabilities go along with it. So if a homeowner is liable for a burglar hurting their self during a crime then so can the business.

[Oh Shoot]

...So if a homeowner is liable for a burglar hurting their self during a crime then so can the business.

 

Ya know what, short of booby traps or such, I don't believe that's really a prevalent occurrence at all, at least for winning a settlement. Seems to be mostly urban legend based on a very few local cases, that probably got overturned on appeal anyway if judgement actually found for the burglar in the first place.

 

- OS

Edited April 25, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[JayC]

I learned long ago not to make a threat I could not back up. Threatening business owners with civil action in a state where carrying a gun is a crime is ridiculous at face value.Many businesses post because of liability concerns. So now we want to tell them they are hosed either way. Can we hit ourselves in the head with a hammer some more?I support carry and I do. But I feel the same way about this as I did about the parking lot issue; this reeks of a thug government. With the state not recognizing a right to carry, there will be a showdown with business; we will lose.

Dave, I have access to a number of insurance policies for businesses here in TN and IN... None of them require prohibiting lawful carry by customers. I've seen a couple of policies which prohibit employees from being armed without a licensed guard.

If you have an example of a policy that prohibits carry by customers, I'd love to see the language, the insurance company and underwriter for that company, because I'd want to avoid them at all costs.

[E4 No More]

Ya know what, short of booby traps or such, I don't believe that's really a prevalent occurrence at all, at least for winning a settlement. Seems to be mostly urban legend based on a very few local cases, that probably got overturned on appeal anyway if judgement actually found for the burglar in the first place.

 

- OS

When I lived in California back in the 80's while in the Marine Corps I saw a news report of a burglar that fell through a skylight of a home and landed on some knives left out on the counter. The homeowners were successfully sued. Granted, it's Kommiefornia, but case law is case law. :shrug: I also heard of lots of stupid cases when I was a LEO.

[Oh Shoot]

When I lived in California back in the 80's while in the Marine Corps I saw a news report of a burglar that fell through a skylight of a home and landed on some knives left out on the counter. The homeowners were successfully sued. Granted, it's Kommiefornia, but case law is case law.

 

Well, yes and no. If it didn't get out of Kali, then it's not relevant past Kali.

 

I don't think you'll find any similar absurd cases in TN. But admittedly there are settlements for suits all the time we're not generally privy to that never make it to court.

 

- OS

Edited April 25, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

I’d be interested in seeing a documented case of someone that was committing a forcible felony suing their victim and winning.

I just can’t get on-board with the idea the state can make carrying a gun a crime, but then raising those who pay for the privilege to a level above the rights of the business owner.

I’m not a business owner, but I would tell the state to go pound sand. It’s a threat they can’t back up.

[Guest PapaB]

I’d be interested in seeing a documented case of someone that was committing a forcible felony suing their victim and winning.

I just can’t get on-board with the idea the state can make carrying a gun a crime, but then raising those who pay for the privilege to a level above the rights of the business owner.

I’m not a business owner, but I would tell the state to go pound sand. It’s a threat they can’t back up.

 

Just google "criminal sues victim and wins", then start reading. The other problem of course is, even if the criminal loses the case, the victim has to spend thousands of dollars defending themselves. In effect, the victim loses twice, even when the case against them is dropped or unsuccessful.

Edited April 26, 2014 by PapaB