Since Valley View Mall's anti gun policy comes up so often, I thought this may be interesting.
Sexually assaulted teen sues Valley View Mall
Sexually assaulted teen sues Valley View Mall
Last edited:
-
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.
-
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.
Sexually assaulted teen sues Valley View Mall
- Thread starter peter nap
- Start date
jmelvin
Founder's Club Member
Good luck to this young lady. If Valley View Mall has a no weapons policy they sure don't go to much effort to make it known. I can tell you for a certainty that smoking is banned at that place and they go to great lengths to make sure that's known.
Last edited:
boyscout399
Regular Member
I have a problem with this. I don't blame anyone but the CRIMINAL for a criminal act. Sue him for raping you, don't sue the mall (because the music is too loud in the dressing room and that caused the man to rape you) just because the mall has deeper pockets.
Even if the store has a policy preventing firearms, I don't think they should be held financially responsible for what a criminal does in the store. You still have the ability to not shop there if you don't agree with that policy and don't feel you can be protected in that location.
I do support legislation that makes the store specifically not liable for damages that occur during a defensive shooting situation because again, it's not really in the store's control what crazy people do in that store...
What if the mall security in this case attempted to kick the man out and he went nuts, pulled a gun and shot at people and the girl in the dressing room got hit and died? Would her family be allowed to sue the mall for attempting to remove the man? I think that's absurd.
Even if the store has a policy preventing firearms, I don't think they should be held financially responsible for what a criminal does in the store. You still have the ability to not shop there if you don't agree with that policy and don't feel you can be protected in that location.
I do support legislation that makes the store specifically not liable for damages that occur during a defensive shooting situation because again, it's not really in the store's control what crazy people do in that store...
What if the mall security in this case attempted to kick the man out and he went nuts, pulled a gun and shot at people and the girl in the dressing room got hit and died? Would her family be allowed to sue the mall for attempting to remove the man? I think that's absurd.
:lol:
I didn't post an opinion on this for a reason.
There are two distinct lines of thought here and a few in the middle.
The first is "They have to accept responsibility for my safety if I'm disarmed".
They of course will be the first to sue or at least talk about it if the music is too loud.
The second is "Private property rights trumps all on private property"
Since I fall in that category, I'd have been fine because I wouldn't have been there in the first place.
This is an interesting situation because an anti gun mall is being sued for not throwing out a drunk and having the music turned up too loud.
It gives a glimpse of the other side of the coin.
rlh2005
Founder's Club Member
Valley View Mall is on the VCDL gun owner unfriendly list. I wonder if the contact info in that listing is out of date.
Also, I've been to rock concerts that were quieter than the A&F I've visited at Short Pump Town Center.
Also, I've been to rock concerts that were quieter than the A&F I've visited at Short Pump Town Center.
While I agree that the criminal needs to be held accountable for his actions (as do we all) there is another aspect at play regarding the mall, the store, and the mall security firm. The mall and the store both invite the public to come onto the private property. They have an obligation to provide certain basic measures of safety - usually covered by things like building codes and the like. The security company has an obligation to protect the assets of their client(s) as well as some very basic duty to the visiting public through such actions as enforcing mall behavioral policy. If they were advised of the presence of the drunken individual before he committed a criminal act then they might be obligated to attempt to remove him/have him removed.
However, absent a working crystal ball I fail to see how anyone could anticipate the drunk turning into a sexual assaulter - even if he was hanging around the dressing room area.
However, someone has to be responsible for what happened to this young lady - and the deeper the pockets the better the chance of getting some level of compensation for the injuries suffered. Also, by making someone else responsible, both this victim and society perpetuate the notion that we cannot and should not be held responsible for puttng ourself in danger and then getting hurt. All power to the Nanny State!
By the way - what 16-year old girl goes shopping (at the mall, no less) by herself? Where were her friends while all this was happening? What did they do - or not do - while this was happening.
Too many unanswered questions at this point, but I'm quite willing to award $1.00 in damages to be divided 45% against the mall, 45% against S&F, and 10% against the security company. now they are on notice that they have some degree of responsibility to provide basic - very basic - protections for their invitees.
stay safe.
However, absent a working crystal ball I fail to see how anyone could anticipate the drunk turning into a sexual assaulter - even if he was hanging around the dressing room area.
However, someone has to be responsible for what happened to this young lady - and the deeper the pockets the better the chance of getting some level of compensation for the injuries suffered. Also, by making someone else responsible, both this victim and society perpetuate the notion that we cannot and should not be held responsible for puttng ourself in danger and then getting hurt. All power to the Nanny State!
By the way - what 16-year old girl goes shopping (at the mall, no less) by herself? Where were her friends while all this was happening? What did they do - or not do - while this was happening.
Too many unanswered questions at this point, but I'm quite willing to award $1.00 in damages to be divided 45% against the mall, 45% against S&F, and 10% against the security company. now they are on notice that they have some degree of responsibility to provide basic - very basic - protections for their invitees.
stay safe.
kennys
Regular Member
Misconceptions people often take for granted.
This does bring up a good point that while anti gun, pro criminal malls, try and give out a false sense of security and make you think that you are safe within their walls, they are talking nonsense. Things like this do happen and all the time. One incident from one mall, I am sure there are many more things that happen like this and worse all over the place, just not reported on. I wonder what a pole would show for those that say they feel nothing would happen to them at a mall.
Now while I do agree with private property owner’s rights, I also believe that when they throw out a sense of security at what ever level they are responsible for what they relay. I have never been to this mall, but I would think they have a sign with nothing but prohibited things like guns. As well I am sure the security guard presence is known as they can be seen. I doubt you would see a sign with a caution that while the mall is staffed with security guards and don’t allow weapons of any kind and so forth vigilance is up to each and every customers because things can happen beyond their control.
While warnings are mandatory to print on products such as choking hazards, cancer hazards, fire hazards and so fourth and many of them being obvious without the warning labels, you would think something like this would need an attached sign. Than again if cigarette makers and other products didn’t have the warning signs they could as well give a false sense of security about their products. I will admit cigarettes may shorten my life by about 20 years, but a criminal can ruin it in a matter of seconds.
Personally I hope her law suite goes well and this brings attention to what can happen in real life and show so many that in reality crime can hit any where, regardless of places like this saying “it’s safe here, there is no reason you would need to carry a gun for your protection”.
This does bring up a good point that while anti gun, pro criminal malls, try and give out a false sense of security and make you think that you are safe within their walls, they are talking nonsense. Things like this do happen and all the time. One incident from one mall, I am sure there are many more things that happen like this and worse all over the place, just not reported on. I wonder what a pole would show for those that say they feel nothing would happen to them at a mall.
Now while I do agree with private property owner’s rights, I also believe that when they throw out a sense of security at what ever level they are responsible for what they relay. I have never been to this mall, but I would think they have a sign with nothing but prohibited things like guns. As well I am sure the security guard presence is known as they can be seen. I doubt you would see a sign with a caution that while the mall is staffed with security guards and don’t allow weapons of any kind and so forth vigilance is up to each and every customers because things can happen beyond their control.
While warnings are mandatory to print on products such as choking hazards, cancer hazards, fire hazards and so fourth and many of them being obvious without the warning labels, you would think something like this would need an attached sign. Than again if cigarette makers and other products didn’t have the warning signs they could as well give a false sense of security about their products. I will admit cigarettes may shorten my life by about 20 years, but a criminal can ruin it in a matter of seconds.
Personally I hope her law suite goes well and this brings attention to what can happen in real life and show so many that in reality crime can hit any where, regardless of places like this saying “it’s safe here, there is no reason you would need to carry a gun for your protection”.
But places like the mall do not say “it’s safe here, there is no reason you would need to carry a gun for your protection”.
All they say is "You cannot carry a gun for yourb protection here."
That's because they know better than to say "It's safe here." And if they do not know better their insurance company attorneys will tell them not to say that.
Security guards can only deal with shoplifting, unless they are Special Conservators of the Peace. I doubt any mall operator/management company wants to set up their own private police department and pay (nearly) prevailing cop wages when they can get an unarmed security guard for barely above minimum wage.
Anybody who believes security theater also probably believes in the tooth fairy and that unicorns poop rainbow skittles.
stay safe.
All they say is "You cannot carry a gun for yourb protection here."
That's because they know better than to say "It's safe here." And if they do not know better their insurance company attorneys will tell them not to say that.
Security guards can only deal with shoplifting, unless they are Special Conservators of the Peace. I doubt any mall operator/management company wants to set up their own private police department and pay (nearly) prevailing cop wages when they can get an unarmed security guard for barely above minimum wage.
Anybody who believes security theater also probably believes in the tooth fairy and that unicorns poop rainbow skittles.
stay safe.
kennys
Regular Member
Repeater
Regular Member
No duty to protect in Virginia
In general, there is no duty to protect in Virginia. A few narrow exceptions apply.
It seems the lawsuit may anticipate one of those exception, spelled out in this case:
Thompson v. Skate America, Inc., 261 Va. 121, 129, 540 S.E.2d 123, 127 (2001).
In general, there is no duty to protect in Virginia. A few narrow exceptions apply.
It seems the lawsuit may anticipate one of those exception, spelled out in this case:
Thompson v. Skate America, Inc., 261 Va. 121, 129, 540 S.E.2d 123, 127 (2001).
kennys
Regular Member
One thing that shows clear in my mind is the screwed up principals of this mall. Not allowing legal lawfully carrying gun owners in, but allowing a drunk and probably disorderly person to stay. You would have even thought because someone reported him they would have at least kept their eye on him, than again I guess because he was not a law abiding gun owner they felt they didn't need too.:banghead:
johnfenter
Regular Member
Here are a few cases that support liability on the part of the property owner
CAMPOS v OPA LOCKA FLEA MARKET - $2.2 Million Settlement
Surviving children, Marlon, Soraya and Myron Campos, successfully brought wrongful death claims for their parents against the Opa-Locka Flea Market. The Alexis Izquierdo Law Firm effectively demonstrated that the Flea Market was negligent in their security provisions. As a result of the case, one of Florida’s largest outdoor flea markets now has metal weapons detectors, video security cameras and additional security guards.
MALDONADO V. PARK PLAZA HOTEL - $4 Million Settlement
Plaintiff, Claudia Maldonado came to the firm of Alexis Izquierdo after discovering that her husband had been robbed and murdered at the Park Plaza Hotel in Hialeah, Florida. Mr. Izquierdo took on the case and filed suit against the hotel and the security company for not having sufficient security which could have prevented Ms. Maldonado from becoming a widow with several children. Mr. Izquierdo along with the firm of Haggard Parks obtained the highest negligent security settlement in Florida history at the time.
These case cites are from a FL law firm; there may be more detailed sites on these cases in law reviews...
CAMPOS v OPA LOCKA FLEA MARKET - $2.2 Million Settlement
Surviving children, Marlon, Soraya and Myron Campos, successfully brought wrongful death claims for their parents against the Opa-Locka Flea Market. The Alexis Izquierdo Law Firm effectively demonstrated that the Flea Market was negligent in their security provisions. As a result of the case, one of Florida’s largest outdoor flea markets now has metal weapons detectors, video security cameras and additional security guards.
MALDONADO V. PARK PLAZA HOTEL - $4 Million Settlement
Plaintiff, Claudia Maldonado came to the firm of Alexis Izquierdo after discovering that her husband had been robbed and murdered at the Park Plaza Hotel in Hialeah, Florida. Mr. Izquierdo took on the case and filed suit against the hotel and the security company for not having sufficient security which could have prevented Ms. Maldonado from becoming a widow with several children. Mr. Izquierdo along with the firm of Haggard Parks obtained the highest negligent security settlement in Florida history at the time.
These case cites are from a FL law firm; there may be more detailed sites on these cases in law reviews...
i'n not yet convinced that the mall, mall security, the mall store or any combination of them "allowed" a drunk to remain on the property. There's just not enough information to know how much they knew and when they knew it, let alone what action they did or did not take after they knew whatever it was they knew.
What we need to focus on I believe, is that going into places where you are prohibited from using effective and efficient means of self-protection is decidedly going into a situation that presents a level of danger above the ordinary. Some gun guru once said that if he knew there was going to be trouble at a place he was going to, he would not go there.
Of course that flies in the face of the excuse for thinking and logic [sorry for the rant] that lots of folks use instead of making a realistic appraisal of the safety of their actions and behavior. While sexual assaults in malls or their parking lots do not happen on a daily basis, they do happen. But some folks believe they only happen to "other people".
On top of all else that I have said so far in this and previous posts, I have not yet done my rant about the parent(s) allowing a 16-year old to go to the mall alone. To save time, go ahead and insert your favorite version yourself.
So - Uncle Skidmark's advice for folks is - if the place will not allow you to use effective and efficient means of self protection, think long and hard about if you want to go there. If not, and you need help finding an alternative source of the goods/services that place offers, feel free to call on me for assistance - I know how to spell GOOGLE fairly well.
stay safe.
I met Peter Nap while waiting for AAA to come and jumpstart me after my car battery died. I told him I would call if I needed help after getting started.
Being as he is older than me (he was on the feasability study for dirt; I was merely on the implementation group) he considers me a small child and worries about me being out unsupervised.
stay safe.
I agree with this post. I cannot correlate the fact that a mall with an anti gun policy had any effect on this situation (drunk guy grabbing a young teen girl in the dressing room). Does anyone actually believe that if the mall was pro-gun, that this incident would not have occurred? An OCer foiling this man's plot and intervening during the crime? Fantasy world. Gropings occur daily on public sidewalks which allow open/c.c. carrying. The girl is suing the mall, security, and Abercromibie & Fitch. This portrays that she is looking for money and is hoping for a settlement. 10 years for a drunk groping is one hell of a sentence (deserved, but rarely seen). Sue happy society.
kennys
Regular Member
No gun policy, mall security. From people looking through rose colored glasses this could be associated with resonable expectation of being safe. While you are right, a gun may not have changed the circumstance, the over all picture is projected that the mall is supposed to be a safe place.
If something fell from the ceiling and hurt a customer I would expect it would be this places liability. Under a reasonable projection of it being a safe place, I would again label this at that places liability. Was there a warning sign that said regardless of no guns and mall security it is up to you to take a consideration of your own security? Probably not.
To you or I, it would be common sense, than again giving toys to young children that could choke on them should be too, but of course they must have warning labels.
Again, shows this mall does not put costumers as its prioritys.
Last edited:
boyscout399
Regular Member
Almost everywhere in this country is normally considered a "safe place" but it's naive thinking to believe that just because a place is relatively safe, that bad things can't happen there. Does this mean that you think if a particular mall had a well known reputation as a high crime place, then they would not have been responsible for any assault happening there because everyone knows it's a bad place, but a mall that has never had a bad thing happen inside and is considered a safe place would be liable if the same assault occurred there as the high crime mall? I would disagree with that and say that it's naive of anyone to believe that they are safe in ANY location regardless of past occurrences at that location. Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own safety and security to the extent of their own physical and mental capabilities. No, I am not blaming the victim. I blame the criminal, and ONLY the criminal, for his actions.
Your analogy of a ceiling tile falling is a completely different situation because the ceiling tile is not a malicious thinking creature. In that situation, the person responsible for the upkeep of the building would be responsible for the damage caused by his neglect.
In the situation provided in this story, it was a criminal act by a malicious predator that caused the damage, and to say that anyone other than that malicious person is responsible for his behavior is absurd and borders on making the criminal into a victim because "oh the poor guy, if the mall security would have just done their job and kicked him out, then he wouldn't have had the opportunity and means to grope that girl, so it's not his fault, it's theirs"
In this case, the girl is the victim, the groper is the criminal, and the mall is nothing more than the crime scene. The owner of a crime scene is not the criminal doing the act, and is not responsible for the actions of a criminal.
She should sue the rapist, not the mall.
Last edited:
kennys
Regular Member
I understand, but look at it this way if a bank left a loaded gun on a counter and a robber picked it up and robbed the bank taking as well customer possessions. . I could see the bank had nothing to do with the criminal action, but is clearly shown that they made it easier for the criminal to commit the act. I would expect, they would probably be sued over the situation. Even though that story is far fetched, I believe it was not only up to the store to take safety into consideration, but as well up to security to keep an eye out for inviting situations...Walk in with a gun even if you are legal get followed around. Walk in drunk and disorderly with complaints get nothing. Yes the criminal is the bad guy here, but it sounds like the mall made it easier for him. Criminals kill just like fires do. Why do they not have criminal codes?
boyscout399
Regular Member
In your posed bank situation, though I think it would be a stupid and irresponsible move by the bank, I still contend that the person responsible for the robbery is the robber, not the bank. Is the bank required to not make it easier for a criminal to do his criminal act? They did not hand the gun to the felon, the felon picked it up of his own free will.