Quote of the day
In comments to a post on the Holiday Inn getting sued for not protecting its customers in a high-crime area, bob says:
What a novel concept. The courts rule that the government has no duty to protect individuals and now we get a court that rules that private businesses do have a duty to protect individuals.
Infuckingdeed.
Update: Xrlqy Wrlqy disagrees, in comments.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Somewhat different set of circumstances:
Suppose a business bans licensed CCW holders from carrying firearms while on the premise. Further, supposed that a thusly disarmed holder is victimized by a criminal while on the premises.
Can the gunowner sue the business?
My personal feeling is that by acting to rendering him defenseless, the business has thus assumed responsiblity for providing such security itself.
March 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Of course, as I commented in the original thread, I believe that this particular hotel has a no weapons sign up. I haven’t been there in some time, but I stayed there a few years ago when I went down to see a concert and seem to recall that.
March 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
SD: setting rules for your own establishment does not make you an insurer for every visitor – unless, of course, a state were to pass a law saying that it does. Until/unless that happens, the only scenario where I can imagine a suit over a “no guns” policy might work is a bizarre set of facts and circumstances that make such a policy negligent.
March 28th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Xrlq is dead on. That’s a common premises liability issue, and it’s nothing new.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
“the only scenario where I can imagine a suit over a ‘no guns’ policy might work is a bizarre set of facts and circumstances that make such a policy negligent.”
What if it were to be shown that such a policy caused the premises to be more likely to be robbed/attacked? For example, Fifth/Third Bank, in Ohio, has seen dramatically increased robberies since concealed carry went into effect in Ohio, while other banks have seen decreases. Fifth/Third is posted; the banks seeing the decrease aren’t. Does that constitute an attractive nuisance or uniquely (and negligently) increased liability?