Question About Hospital Postings

Hey again all,

Quick question if you don't mind. If a hospital receives government aid, but isn't a government hospital (not a Vet hospital or anything), would they be liable in the case of an active shooter? The hospital in my town is posted, as are many (I'm led to believe). As far as I've read, places that post and don't have any measures in place to prevent a shooting are liable for damages. Is a hospital the same?

Yes, a hospital is just like any other business / property owner.
If they post, they lose immunity from liability. See 175.60(21)

Normal people look at that & say, well, if they lose their immunity from liability then they're liable, and since they put their customers in a dangerous situation, it's their fault when the customers get hurt.

But oftentimes lawyers (including lawmakers & judges) don't think like the rest of us.

There hasn't yet been a court case to confirm that places which post (Azana salon, Potawotomi casino, churches, hospitals) are actually liable for damages for not protecting people they required to be defenseless.

MKEgal said:

Yes, a hospital is just like any other business / property owner.
If they post, they lose immunity from liability. See 175.60(21)

Normal people look at that & say, well, if they lose their immunity from liability then they're liable, and since they put their customers in a dangerous situation, it's their fault when the customers get hurt.

But oftentimes lawyers (including lawmakers & judges) don't think like the rest of us.

There hasn't yet been a court case to confirm that places which post (Azana salon, Potawotomi casino, churches, hospitals) are actually liable for damages for not protecting people they required to be defenseless.

Click to expand...

was exactly my point made to my state legislative members when i talked to them about schools ... OMG you would have thought I killed a zillion kids from the feedback ... I told them "too bad -- you force the kids to go to school and then have no iota of safety precautions"

i still can walk around a school and pass by, uncontested, school personnel by the dozens ... my state is not concerned about school safety at all in reality

Gotcha. So we just don't know if it presents liability, or it could in some cases and not others?

The following is only my opinion. It is based on some experience with our legal system as well as some "off the record" discussions with friends who are lawyers.

First, no matter what is or isn't in the law, what really matters is what you can get a jury to buy. Let's take a step back a minute and assume there were a different dangerous condition...

Suppose someone slips on ice in the parking lot. There's going to be a giant difference in the outcome of the case...usually....if, say, the ice has been there for a week with people slipping on it until finally someone got hurt....and a patch of ice that has just formed in the past hour due to a snowfall. The law (and juries) will go after the former...but give a lot of leeway to the latter. If there is an established, known, specific risk that they do nothing about...you're going to win your case against them. Just because something bad happens on their property that they had no way of knowing about and preventing, however, doesn't guarantee you anything. They might settle out of court if they view it as cheaper, or they may fight it (and win) on principle.

Same thing would *likely* apply to a firearms situation. You'd have to show a pattern of threat (the place regularly getting robbed, for example) with a lack of attempts to resolve it (no hired security, etc)...and even then, unless you can somehow show that you _would_ (not just "might have") been able to avoid an injury by being armed (good luck selling that in this state...) you're facing long odds on winning the case.

To see it put in other words, by attorneys.... http://www.domnitzlaw.com/Articles/Proving-Liability-in-Wisconsin-Slip-and-Fall-Cases.shtml

My opinion is that any place that wants to post should be using metal detectors and provide free storage.

They have security, but they're all unarmed. No metal detectors that I could see either. And this town isn't known for being very peaceful, does that count toward a pattern of threat?

Teej said:

If there is an established, known, specific risk that they do nothing about... you're going to win your case against them. Just because something bad happens on their property that they had no way of knowing about and preventing, however, doesn't guarantee you anything... show a pattern of threat (the place regularly getting robbed, for example) with a lack of attempts to resolve it

Click to expand...

To establish a pattern of threat in "gun-free" zones, we have only to look to the crime reports. Especially, we should list in our complaint the various mass murders which have happened in "gun-free" zones.

I think it's one of those "known or reasonably should have known" things. Any reasonable person knows or should know that advertising that your business & customers are defenseless will not protect them; in fact, will attract criminals.

Lack of attempt to resolve it - documented contacts by citizens requesting that they take down their "no (legal) guns" signs, and pointing out the immunity from liability when they don't post, plus the pattern of behaviour of criminals (Azana, various mass murders), and show that the signs were still on the doors when the incident under discussion took place.

The main problem I see is that unless it's a government office we're not required to go to any business. So it could be said that we knowingly put ourselves in danger & accepted the risk.

Sometimes there's no choice but to visit a hospital lol