The state is "compensating" the families. Isn't this nothing less than a tacit admission that they were liable for the safety of the students? And couldn't this action be taken as a precident
for future legal action?
That's an interesting thought. Arizona CDL proposed some controversial legislation this year in Arizona which didn't pass. The gist of it was that private property owners (employers, shop-owners, restaurants, etc) are free to restrict possession of firearms, but if they do, and an armed criminal hurts innocent civilians disarmed by such a policy, the private property owner is civilly liable for injury damages.
This type of liability would likely result in many companies removing such policies. Civil penalties for wrongful death can be huge, so agree with the law or not, I doubt many companies, especially large companies, would risk being sued over such an incident.
On the other hand, playing devils advocate, what if such a law takes effect, companies remove their restrictions, and an employee, no longer restricted from carrying, goes crazy and starts shooting. What is the risk then? The company didn't take proper steps to protect its employees? Now we all know that a criminal (including a crazy employee) is going to ignore a "no weapons" policy, but the anti's feel it's as good as kevlar. Anyone know of any court cases in which a company was sued for inadequate protection from workplace violence, as a result of not having a "no firearms" policy? Or similar...