• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What if I was injured in school zone, public building etc...

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

If I was robbed or injured while in a school zone or in a public building that I could not have a firearm to protect myself with, would I be able to sue for liability because I was prohibited? Or say I am at work (I can not carry at work) and I am injured for the same reason could I sue my employer?

I was thinking that since they would not be able to guarantee my safety in any of the above situations but are prohibiting me from defending myself doesn't that create some liability?
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

eye95 wrote:
Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )



That would be the owner, IE the government. If you are wrongfully injured there is liability. If I were injured because I was unable to defend myself (or worse, killed) would I or my family be able to sue the Feds for preventing me from protecting myself. As they can not guarantee my safety, and it is ultimately my own responsibility to protect myself. By preventing me the ability to effectively protect myself would that not make them liable for any damages that may have occurred?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )
That would be the owner, IE the government. If you are wrongfully injured there is liability. If I were injured because I was unable to defend myself (or worse, killed) would I or my family be able to sue the Feds for preventing me from protecting myself. As they can not guarantee my safety, and it is ultimately my own responsibility to protect myself. By preventing me the ability to effectively protect myself would that not make them liable for any damages that may have occurred?
IANAL, but suing the government for liability for an injury falls somewhere between nearly impossible and impossible
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

There is case law to support this. A case in Texas recently with a judge who warned the business that if they prohibited the individual in the case from being able to protect himself, then they assumed the responsibility for his protection and the liability should he be the victim of a crime while on the premises. I seem to recall the business was arguing property rights.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:
There is case law to support this. A case in Texas recently with a judge who warned the business that if they prohibited the individual in the case from being able to protect himself, then they assumed the responsibility for his protection and the liability should he be the victim of a crime while on the premises. I seem to recall the business was arguing property rights.
Well, they say that with rights come responsibility. I agree with the private property rights meaning the business owner can ban guns. Maybe he could be held liable, but I'd counter with "assumption of risk." If someone enters knowing that he will not be allowed to protect himself, he knowingly assumes that risk.

However, this is moot. The OP was talking about publicly owned buildings. In those cases, the owner is varying levels of government.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

eye95 wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
There is case law to support this. A case in Texas recently with a judge who warned the business that if they prohibited the individual in the case from being able to protect himself, then they assumed the responsibility for his protection and the liability should he be the victim of a crime while on the premises. I seem to recall the business was arguing property rights.
Well, they say that with rights come responsibility. I agree with the private property rights meaning the business owner can ban guns. Maybe he could be held liable, but I'd counter with "assumption of risk." If someone enters knowing that he will not be allowed to protect himself, he knowingly assumes that risk.

However, this is moot. The OP was talking about publicly owned buildings. In those cases, the owner is varying levels of government.
No, my question was for BOTH. As my current employer has decided not to allow weapons on any of his property (means I cant even have my sidearm in my car when parked on his lot for work), he is assuming the responsibility of my protection and safety. If I am walking down the hall and slip on some water or oil he is liable. So why wouldn't he be responsible if I am shot or stabbed by an unruly customer? If he does not permit me the right of protection would it not be arguable that he is taking up that task? Same thing for a government building, if I am walking down the hall and a ceiling tile falls and injures me they are liable, would they not be? An example is I am at the city courthouse. I am unarmed as it is a public building. I need to use the restroom. While in there a thug comes in and threatens to kill me if I dont hand over my wallet and valuables. Afterwards he hits me with his pistol (cause criminals wont be concerned over the no carry law) and I am severely injured. Now if not for the no carry law in this building I would have been able to defend myself. Why would I not put the blame on that city for not allowing me to defend myself?
 

IndianaBoy79

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
639
Location
Eagle, Idaho, USA
imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:
No, my question was for BOTH. As my current employer has decided not to allow weapons on any of his property (means I cant even have my sidearm in my car when parked on his lot for work), he is assuming the responsibility of my protection and safety. If I am walking down the hall and slip on some water or oil he is liable. So why wouldn't he be responsible if I am shot or stabbed by an unruly customer? If he does not permit me the right of protection would it not be arguable that he is taking up that task? Same thing for a government building, if I am walking down the hall and a ceiling tile falls and injures me they are liable, would they not be? An example is I am at the city courthouse. I am unarmed as it is a public building. I need to use the restroom. While in there a thug comes in and threatens to kill me if I dont hand over my wallet and valuables. Afterwards he hits me with his pistol (cause criminals wont be concerned over the no carry law) and I am severely injured. Now if not for the no carry law in this building I would have been able to defend myself. Why would I not put the blame on that city for not allowing me to defend myself?
I'd agree with you when it comes to publicly owned buildings; if I can't carry, they SHOULD be responsible and held liable for my safety. When it comes to you're employer though, you are CHOOSING to enter his private property. You are agreeing to abide by the terms of employment. If you continue to work there and harm comes to you, it was your own choices that lead to you disarming. No one forced you to work there.

I know the Supremes have decided that the police have no obligation to protect the individual, they only have a duty to protect the public at large. Even though I agree with the concept, I don't think it would hold up in court.

For the record, I work for such an employer. I choose to break the rules and carry anyways. I am ready to accept the consequences for my actions too.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
There is case law to support this. A case in Texas recently with a judge who warned the business that if they prohibited the individual in the case from being able to protect himself, then they assumed the responsibility for his protection and the liability should he be the victim of a crime while on the premises. I seem to recall the business was arguing property rights.
Well, they say that with rights come responsibility. I agree with the private property rights meaning the business owner can ban guns. Maybe he could be held liable, but I'd counter with "assumption of risk." If someone enters knowing that he will not be allowed to protect himself, he knowingly assumes that risk.

However, this is moot. The OP was talking about publicly owned buildings. In those cases, the owner is varying levels of government.
No, my question was for BOTH. ...
Oops. Sorry. I had a few posts back and forth with you on the public-owned buildings and forgot that you did ask about a private business too. Sorry.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
There is case law to support this. A case in Texas recently with a judge who warned the business that if they prohibited the individual in the case from being able to protect himself, then they assumed the responsibility for his protection and the liability should he be the victim of a crime while on the premises. I seem to recall the business was arguing property rights.
Well, they say that with rights come responsibility. I agree with the private property rights meaning the business owner can ban guns. Maybe he could be held liable, but I'd counter with "assumption of risk." If someone enters knowing that he will not be allowed to protect himself, he knowingly assumes that risk.

However, this is moot. The OP was talking about publicly owned buildings. In those cases, the owner is varying levels of government.
I was merely relating a case where this was raised as an issue. I am an ardent supporter of private property rights and as such, there are times when I find myself torn between fundamental natural laws. I don't pretend to know a firm and fixed answer to this question.
 

Bersa.380

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
270
Location
South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
imported post

Here's a little twist ... ...

You work at Joe's Coffee and Car repair and he supports the 2A.

Then he get gets married to a controlling crazy woman from Hollywood, she hates guns, makes him sell all his guns and then to top it off, makes him ban them from the shop.
So, you start leaving your Beretta locked in your car due to Joe's request.

Matter of fact Joe starts sleeping with another woman due to his wife's crazy ways.

You don't agree with any of this crap and so you begin to look for other work, you just can't up and quit because you need to pay rent, make a car payment, and feed your self.

A month goes by ..... you've found another job and you walk into Joe's on Monday morning to give your 2-week notice and tell Joe why you're leaving .... Then around 10:00AM the crazy wife walks in waving a pistol and popping off rounds while she screams at Joe ... you cheating dirt-bag .... she hits Joe 3 times in the chest, then she points the gun at you and fires .... she hit you in the elbow and you watch half of your arm hit the floor.

1. My gun was in my car and I could not defend my self.

2. Now who's going to tell me I can't sue and why ?
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

My question boils down to this, who is ultimately responsible for my safety? Outside of the workplace it is mine. However at work you are required to adhere to policy. If that policy results in your injury you can sue your employer. Your employer must make efforts to protectyou while your in his place of business. I that policy is that no weapons are allowed on the property, that should mean that employer has other provisions in place to protect those whom he or she employees. In court you are proving negligence, wouldn't it be negligent of that employer to not provide for your safety while in their service?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Your employer has no such responsibility. To give him such infantilizes you. He has a responsibility to provide a reasonably safe place of business, not a totally safe one. Since the chances of a shooting in a workplace is so infinitesimal, he cannot reasonably be expected to take action. Even if he were, he could easily argue that he was, by banning guns, trying to protect you.

Yes, I know. You'd completely disagree with that argument. However, it is not your opinion of that argument that matters.

The ultimate responsibility for your safety lies with you. Everywhere. Including at work. If you feel that being armed at work is so critical to your safety, and your boss does not, don't work for him.

If you choose to work for someone who does not allow you to carry, you have voluntarily assumed that risk.

That is the other side of the coin of Liberty. Responsibility. If you want to be free, be responsible. Don't look for other people to be responsible for what happens to you.
 

JohnF

New member
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
3
Location
Boulder, ,
imported post

This is a good question, and one I've been wondering about.

---------------quote-------------
http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm
The Police: No Duty To Protect Individuals

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship, " concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."
...

One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.

Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York’s high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." [12]

---------------end quote-------------

Has anybody tried suing based on the Riss and DeShaney cases, in a gun-ban city?

The city or a "gun free zone" business makes it impossible to protect themselves by disarming them, then claims no responsibility for protecting citizens who follow that law?
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

JohnF wrote:
This is a good question, and one I've been wondering about.

---------------quote-------------
http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm
The Police: No Duty To Protect Individuals

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship, " concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."
...

One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.

Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York’s high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." [12]

---------------end quote-------------

Has anybody tried suing based on the Riss and DeShaney cases, in a gun-ban city?

The city or a "gun free zone" business makes it impossible to protect themselves by disarming them, then claims no responsibility for protecting citizens who follow that law?
Thus, the basis for my question.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
bigdaddy1 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )
That would be the owner, IE the government. If you are wrongfully injured there is liability. If I were injured because I was unable to defend myself (or worse, killed) would I or my family be able to sue the Feds for preventing me from protecting myself. As they can not guarantee my safety, and it is ultimately my own responsibility to protect myself. By preventing me the ability to effectively protect myself would that not make them liable for any damages that may have occurred?
IANAL, but suing the government for liability for an injury falls somewhere between nearly impossible and impossible
they have insurance, the claim would have to be taken care of with their Insurance company.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Glock34 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
bigdaddy1 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )
That would be the owner, IE the government. If you are wrongfully injured there is liability. If I were injured because I was unable to defend myself (or worse, killed) would I or my family be able to sue the Feds for preventing me from protecting myself. As they can not guarantee my safety, and it is ultimately my own responsibility to protect myself. By preventing me the ability to effectively protect myself would that not make them liable for any damages that may have occurred?
IANAL, but suing the government for liability for an injury falls somewhere between nearly impossible and impossible
they have insurance, the claim would have to be taken care of with their Insurance company.
"They" have sovereign immunity. You will be denied permission to sue.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Glock34 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
bigdaddy1 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Whom would you sue? (In the case of the school or public building. )
That would be the owner, IE the government. If you are wrongfully injured there is liability. If I were injured because I was unable to defend myself (or worse, killed) would I or my family be able to sue the Feds for preventing me from protecting myself. As they can not guarantee my safety, and it is ultimately my own responsibility to protect myself. By preventing me the ability to effectively protect myself would that not make them liable for any damages that may have occurred?
IANAL, but suing the government for liability for an injury falls somewhere between nearly impossible and impossible
they have insurance, the claim would have to be taken care of with their Insurance company.
"They" have sovereign immunity. You will be denied permission to sue.
i never said anything about suing. If you slip fall in a public building or on the property ( parking lot ) they HAVE to cover it, that's why they have insurance. If you get beat up in a public building, I bet your legal council will be able to find a way of getting $$$ compensation.
 
Top