Aldi's robbery--- does Aldi's have any liability?

metalman383 said:

Walking in with a shotgun to rob the store, took away any rights he had to not get shot!

Click to expand...

+1 this

metalman383 said:

Walking in with a shotgun to rob the store, took away any rights he had to not get shot!

Click to expand...

+1

I wish there was a LIKE button.

skorittnig said:

It is my understanding that Aldi's is a posted " no CCW zone". Does anyone know if they are liable for anything resulting from the attempted robbery?

Click to expand...

I suppose any of the customers could sue, claiming that they suffered emotional trama, because Aldi's actions (posting signs) created an environment attractive to criminals. But regrettalbly, I think such a lawsuit would be found to be frivilous.

I think for any lawsuit to have any weight, a person would have to claim and show proof they suffered or were injured, BECAUSE Aldi's prohibited them from lawfully carrying a handgun.

BROKENSPROKET said:

....

I think for any lawsuit to have any weight, a person would have to claim and show proof they suffered....

Click to expand...

Well, Mr.Al-Mujaahid suffered a loss of lead.... :monkey

protias said:

175.60(21)(b): A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.

Click to expand...

Here's the problem with this statute.

If a business IS posted, and someone gets injured or killed by someone with a gun (which would be possessed illegally--in teh form of a "tresspassing" violation), then there is simply NO court that would hold the business liable for the criminal act of a criminal, who was acting in direct violation of the property owners expressed wishes, and outside of their control.

This is a "feel good" law. It does nothing to force liability on to property owners that post--it ONLY protects people who ALLOW carry from liability in an accident or event invilving legal and lawful carry.

A third party cannot be held liable for the criminal actions of another party that violate their property owner rights and policies.

Dreamer said:

Here's the problem with this statute.

If a business IS posted, and someone gets injured or killed by someone with a gun (which would be possessed illegally--in teh form of a "tresspassing" violation), then there is simply NO court that would hold the business liable for the criminal act of a criminal, who was acting in direct violation of the property owners expressed wishes, and outside of their control.

This is a "feel good" law. It does nothing to force liability on to property owners that post--it ONLY protects people who ALLOW carry from liability in an accident or event invilving legal and lawful carry.

A third party cannot be held liable for the criminal actions of another party that violate their property owner rights and policies.

Click to expand...

That's an opinion, not fact. The law is the law until proven otherwise.

Dreamer said:

Here's the problem with this statute.

If a business IS posted, and someone gets injured or killed by someone [strike]with a gun[/strike] (which would be possessed illegally--in teh form of a "tresspassing" violation), then there is simply NO court that would hold the business liable for the criminal act of a criminal, who was acting in direct violation of the property owners expressed wishes, and outside of their control.

Click to expand...

Under WI law, they would/could be held liable. Why? Because they prohibited someone from being able to use the tools to defend themselves.

Dreamer said:

This is a "feel good" law. It does nothing to force liability on to property owners that post--it ONLY protects people who [strike]ALLOW[/strike] do not prohibit carry from liability in an accident or event invilving legal and lawful carry.

A third party cannot be held liable for the criminal actions of another party that violate their property owner rights and policies.

Click to expand...

It is not a feel good law, it is the law. You are correct in your second sentence, it does not force any liability, but here is the thing, everyone has liability, hence why we have liability insurance.

I don't think were on the right track here. 175.60(21)(b): A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision, seems pretty clear cut that a business that does not post has immunity from civil liability that may result. However it does NOT say that a business that does post has any greater liability than before Act 35 became law. I admit that my thinking here is a complete turn around from before. I see it as a company can not be held liable for the actions of another person other than an employee regardless of if you are permitted to carry a firearm or not. A person or business can be liable for things like a broken chair or table. A lamp fixture installed improperly or keeping the hamburger at the proper storage temperature. Say your in McDonald's eating your McBurger and fries and theres an earthquake. A French fry flies off the table and pokes you in the eye, is McDonald's liable for your injury? Same theory to an armed robber coming in, how is McDonald's liable for the actions of another person? They weren't liable before so why would they be now? I am not saying that you couldn't try to argue the case in court that you suffered a loss because you were unarmed. I don't think that as written the law creates, increases or defines any liability to a person or business that posts and prohibits firearms or other protective weapons on their property. If there is some other law that does please let me know but 175.60(21)(b) or any other part of Act 35 does not.

Dreamer said:

Here's the problem with this statute.

If a business IS posted, and someone gets injured or killed by someone with a gun (which would be possessed illegally--in teh form of a "tresspassing" violation), then there is simply NO court that would hold the business liable for the criminal act of a criminal, who was acting in direct violation of the property owners expressed wishes, and outside of their control.

This is a "feel good" law. It does nothing to force liability on to property owners that post--it ONLY protects people who ALLOW carry from liability in an accident or event invilving legal and lawful carry.

A third party cannot be held liable for the criminal actions of another party that violate their property owner rights and policies.

Click to expand...

Oh, really?

http://www.kentreporter.com/news/115529629.html

Kent Denny's shooting lawsuit results in $46 million verdict, a state record

"The fact that Evans had been able to wreak the havoc he did at Denny's was the core of the lawsuit's argument: that Denny's as a company was not doing enough to assure the safety of its customers and employees."

If a company can be sued for not doing enough to protect it's customers, then it obviously takes on even more responsibility when it denies it's customers their right to carry.

DamageInc said:

Oh, really?

http://www.kentreporter.com/news/115529629.html

Kent Denny's shooting lawsuit results in $46 million verdict, a state record

"The fact that Evans had been able to wreak the havoc he did at Denny's was the core of the lawsuit's argument: that Denny's as a company was not doing enough to assure the safety of its customers and employees."

If a company can be sued for not doing enough to protect it's customers, then it obviously takes on even more responsibility when it denies it's customers their right to carry.

Click to expand...

Reading the article it would seem there are extenuating circumstances eluded to, such as high gang activity in the area and a history of violence at bar closing. Also stated that the claimants settled for 13 million to avoid the continual loop of expected arbitration. To me this is similar to the lady that cried about her crotch burn from McDonald's hot coffee. The injured people couldn't get anything out of the creep that pulled the trigger so they go after the money. As Denny's stated they don't believe they did anything wrong, and neither do I.

bigdaddy1 said:

Reading the article it would seem there are extenuating circumstances eluded to, such as high gang activity in the area and a history of violence at bar closing. Also stated that the claimants settled for 13 million to avoid the continual loop of expected arbitration. To me this is similar to the lady that cried about her crotch burn from McDonald's hot coffee. The injured people couldn't get anything out of the creep that pulled the trigger so they go after the money. As Denny's stated they don't believe they did anything wrong, and neither do I.

Click to expand...

Nor do I.

norwisman said:

Nor do I.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what we think; what matters is what the courts think. Dreamer claimed that no court would decide against a business like that, and he is obviously wrong. And that Denny's shooting is not the only example of that; there are plenty of them, if you do some research on it.

bigdaddy1 said:

Reading the article it would seem there are extenuating circumstances eluded to, such as high gang activity in the area and a history of violence at bar closing. Also stated that the claimants settled for 13 million to avoid the continual loop of expected arbitration. To me this is similar to the lady that cried about her crotch burn from McDonald's hot coffee. The injured people couldn't get anything out of the creep that pulled the trigger so they go after the money. As Denny's stated they don't believe they did anything wrong, and neither do I.

Click to expand...

They made the settlement AFTER winning the award from the jury, to avoid the appeals process and get their money right away. That is NOT the same thing as making a settlement prior to a verdict.

DamageInc said:

They made the settlement AFTER winning the award from the jury, to avoid the appeals process and get their money right away. That is NOT the same thing as making a settlement prior to a verdict.

Click to expand...

Yep, just what I said.:uhoh:
However the question at hand is does Wisconsin's concealed carry law create, strengthen or dictate any additional civil liability to a person or business that posts? As I stated a few posts ago " I am not saying that you couldn't try to argue the case in court that you suffered a loss because you were unarmed", but there is no legislation that puts any additional burden on an individual or business that decides to post no weapons signs. Had the court found that because Denny's had posted NO WEAPONS signs they had additional liability for the protection of their customers that would be a good cite.

bigdaddy1 said:

Yep, just what I said.:uhoh:
However the question at hand is does Wisconsin's concealed carry law create, strengthen or dictate any additional civil liability to a person or business that posts? As I stated a few posts ago " I am not saying that you couldn't try to argue the case in court that you suffered a loss because you were unarmed", but there is no legislation that puts any additional burden on an individual or business that decides to post no weapons signs. Had the court found that because Denny's had posted NO WEAPONS signs they had additional liability for the protection of their customers that would be a good cite.

Click to expand...

No. Posting does not increase liability in any way, shape, or form, as you stated a few posts ago. Their liability remains the same and can be sued for any amount. How much would be awarded? That's up to the court.

protias said:

No. Posting does not increase liability in any way, shape, or form, as you stated a few posts ago. Their liability remains the same and can be sued for any amount. How much would be awarded? That's up to the court.

Click to expand...

I hope that there wont be a test case, that someone is injured or killed because someone has the misconception that posting a sign in front of their business will somehow make it a safer environment. I also hope that all those businesses that prohibit an employee from the right of defense by keeping firearms out of the workplace wont have a test either.