I was replying to someone who advocated that any business who posts "no firearms" be made liable for injury caused by a criminal assault. it's not law now, but some people on the forums have floated making a law like that. I'm only stating I think it's absurd that a business that bans guns be held liable while a business that allows them be immune.
Now I understand you're an attorney Mr. Rapgood, so obviously you know way more then me. But I always thought generally in torts that disregarding rules or regulations absolved the regulating party of liability. like in my former workplace, if I attempted to put an item on top shelf of a shopping aisle using a wheeled shopping cart and fall and hurt myself, that the store isn't liable because they provided me with instructions to use OSHA compliant step ladders kept in the back.
Likewise I would think that if a business had posted "no gun policies" and a shooter came in and shot some people, the business isn't responsible since they didn't encourage nor ask that the shooter bring his gun on premises and by bringing his gun he violated posted rules.
I mean This was how I thought it worked from minimal reading, but obviously you're the expert so I'll defer to whatever you say is the case.
I wasn't implying that you were wrong. I was just trying to understand your reasoning. Now that I understand it, I disagree with you... somewhat. In certain circumstances, it may
appear that a party is held harmless for failing to take an affirmative action, but those circumstances are actually quite rare.
In your example of the wheeled shopping cart, technically, the employer
is liable. However, that liability may be offset by the legal theory of "comparative negligence" (while the employer may have been negligent in not ensuring that you complied with proper safety rules, that liability can be "offset" by whatever percentage of the injury was caused by your failure to follow established procedures). And even then, Workman's Compensation insurance is obtained to cover those costs assessed against the employer. However, usually, Workman's Comp covers the total costs when the situation has not been adjudicated by the employee suing the employer.
A licensee is one who enters on the land with the possessor's permission, express or implied, for his or her own purposes or business rather than for the possessor's benefit.
In the situation where some organization (such as WAC) has a function to which you are invited (either with or without an "entry fee"), the sponsor of that event owes you a duty to protect you from unnecessary harm. In this circumstance, the possessor (inviting party) owes you a general duty to use reasonable and ordinary care in keeping the property reasonably safe for your benefit. This general duty includes duties owed to licensees (to warn of non-obvious, dangerous conditions known to the possessor and to use ordinary care in active operations on the property)
plus an affirmative duty to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and, thereafter, make them safe.
The distinction between a "licensee" and an "invitee" is that the licensee enters the property (with permission) solely for purposes that benefit him or her. And invitee, on the other hand, has been invited onto the property for the benefit of the inviting party or for the benefit of both parties. In either circumstance, a duty is owed to the non-possessor of the land by the possessor of the land. Generally, a trespasser is owned no duty by a possessor except the possessor's duty to refrain from wanton and willful conduct (in other words, you generally aren't permitted to shoot them).
