imported post
kennys wrote:
...
I believe most places would not go for this because ifrestaurants that sold alcohol did this, than they having first hand knowledge of over the limit drivers leaving there property they could face a world of problems. As it is now the less they know what goes on in the parking lot the better....
That's a good example. Restaurants that serve alcohol are responsible for what happens if a drunken patron assaults someone else within the restaurant. They have a duty to keep order and not to serve anyone alcohol to excess (in the place of business - outside is a different matter).
In addition,all retailestablishments owe the highest level of duty to "business invitees" - people who are lured in by the promise of trade and commerce. That doesn't make them an "insurer" of the safety of the patrons, such that they're strictly liable for what happens (acts of God or other third parties, for example). But where a condition that exists that they had reason to know about (mayonnaise on the Safeway floor, for example) and did nothing to either warn the patrons or fix the problem, then they're liable for the negligent breach of the duty of care owed to business invitees.
When one opens a retail establishment up to the public, generally (and Costco, despite its membership hogwash, is doing just that), he makes it possible for third parties to take actions to harm the happy shoppers. If the happy shoppers are armed, themselves, and not defenseless, then the "third parties" exception to the business invitee rule applies - the business isn't liable for the acts of third parties over whom it has no control. But if, through its own actions, the business either causes or exacerbates the threatened harm, then it is just as liable as the third party.
The leap I'm making is to suggest that making the patrons defenseless makes the threat worse, and in so doing, the business is actively co-operating with the criminals to harm the shoppers. The point of view that's appropriate is that of the shopper, who only has to know that he's been harmed, and everyone who contributed to that harm is liable. It's as if Costco or Safeway had a policy of not cleaning the mayonnaise up off the floor, but leaving it there until someone slips and busts their punkin' heads wide open.
When a governmental agency is operated as a business or quasi-business, in order to do nongovernmental functions, that agency loses its "sovereign immunity". That's because it's operating as a "proprietary function" rather than a "ministerial function". Such an agency can be constrained by exactly the same standard of care owed to business invitees, and I'd argue that a state college or university is such an agency. People pay money to buy services. It's not an exercise of the police power, taxation authority, etc., but a retail business.
These are my opinions, by the way, I haven't doneany case research on the issue for a good while.
As to standards of care, fyi: one ordinarily owes no duty to a trespassor except that one may not "wantonly or willfully injure" the trespassor. No spring guns, pit traps, etc. The only duty one owes to an ordinary licensee (i.e., someone you permit to come on your property, such as dinner guests) is to warn them of known dangers, especially hidden or nonobvious dangers. The business invitee rule represents the highest level of duty.
"Negligence" is defined as the careless, reckless, or negligent breach of a duty to another person, resulting in genuine harm, damages, or injuries to the other person, andwhere the breach of duty "proximately", or actuallycaused the other person's harm, damages, or injuries. "Proximate cause" means that which was the efficient cause and close in time and space; i.e., not remote or indirect.
