View Single Post
Old January 20, 2013, 01:29 PM   #41
Evan Thomas
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,142
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
My point is that private businesses are held legally responsible to provide reasonable accommodation for certain aspects of their patrons' safety such as fire protection, but not others such as violent crime and that represents a double standard. I fail to understand why a business should be able to be sued for damages if I'm injured or killed in a fire because they failed to provide adequate fire protection, but they're immune to liability should I be killed by a violent criminal when they not only failed to provide adequate security, but refused to allow me to provide for my own.
Actually, they're by no means immune from liability. Businesses are routinely held liable for failing to provide adequate security to protect patrons from assault or murder. The standards vary from one jurisdiction to another, and it's an area in which the case law is evolving (including the question of how much fault should be apportioned to the business and how much to the assailant). But the basic principle is well established. See this article titled "The Law of Premises Liability," originally from the Defense Research Institute (a bunch of defense attorneys), for a lengthy discussion of the case law.

I wonder how carrying, with or without the implicit permission of the business, would affect the outcome of a lawsuit if one were injured or killed by a criminal on the premises in spite of being armed...
Evan Thomas is offline  
Page generated in 0.03492 seconds with 7 queries