I work for a company that prohibits possession of firearms on the premises.  I also went to a college that had the same sort of policy regarding firearms.  

Say one day someone from outside the company come on site and shoots me (or assaults me with a bat or knife...deadly weapon).  Can I sue the company (or a college for that matter) for depriving me of my constitutional right that would have allowed me to defend myself?

I've always sort of wondered this and told my wife if anything ever happens to me to call a lawyer.  I just didn't know if it was a legitimate suit or if in fact i was full of it.  

Its not even about getting money as much as teaching a company or school that if they want to espouse anti-firearm regulation, they'd better be prepared to pay for it (that's how you get a companies attention...the pocket book).  sloth

I don't know.

Your case would be a whole lot better if you expressed your concerns in writing ahead of time though.

Something like" Because of your mandatory rules against self protection I am here-by holding (institution) completely liable for all damages, pain and suffering incurred by myself in the event of a defensible attack perpetrated by another.  By prohibiting me from defending myself you are assuming complete and total responsibility for my personal safety."

If concealed carry is not otherwise proscribed for you, in your state, I'd go ahead and carry.

What's the worst they can do? Fire you?  Would you rather be fired for successfully defending yourself or would you rather be (maybe) recovering in a hospital?

While on their property, you don't have a constitutional right to protect yourself.  The Constitution only applies to government.

That being as it may, you can sue anyone for anything, it is getting the jury to side with you that is the clincher.

After the gov grants the right to carry and defend oneself, I think the question turns to whether the banning institution is implying they are taking on the duty of safety and defense of all people on premises.  

I think your letter of notice should be sent.  You lose nothing and you may gain the right to carry.  Who knows!  If you are seriously worried about your safety, then why not carry something with a low profile?  Keep it to yourself.  Its not about a pissing contest, its about your safety, but I do like the part that if you cannot carry on premises, that the institution should be liable for all damages incurred in a breach of security and safety.  Very nice.

You've got two major problems with this potential lawsuit. This has been discussed many, many times before. I'm not a lawyer, but here is my take...

First, the person who comes there and shoots you is an intentional tortfeasor (the company would, at most, be negligent) who is the intervening and superceding cause of your harm. The company did not "cause" anything, even if you can establish that they had some duty to protect you (which they do not).

You might say that the company, by disarming you, "caused" the situation that allowed the guy to come in and shoot you. This leads to the second problem, which is that whether having your gun would have made a difference is just too speculative. Maybe it would have, maybe not. If the guy ambushes you, it wouldn't. If he hits you first, or if your shots fail to stop him quickly, then again you're still SOL.

There may be unique facts and circumstances in some cases that might allow for a suit to at least proceed to trial, but my guess is that this wouldn't generally fly.

If that scenario happens to me, either I or my estate WILL be suing said organization.

If they deny me the right to protect myself, they assume the responsibility of protecting me.

Wrong.

Even if they do have or assume such a duty, it will never be an absolute duty, but one of merely ordinary care. This means that if they take reasonable steps, they avoid liability despite the fact that a whacko runs in with a gun.

And again, you have an intervening intentional tort, which almost always discharges a duty of care like this. Wanna sue someone? Sue the gunman or his estate.

garandman-

You don't have a "right" to carry a gun on a private company's property any more than you have a "right" to carry one in my house if I tell you not to. The RKBA is a negative liberty, a restraint on govt...not private entities.

The solution is the same in both cases. You either don't enter the property, or you come unarmed.

already been done..:

wasnt there a "Mcdonalds" employee a while back..that shot and killed a would be robber?

after Mcdonalds thanked him for saving the peoples lives they also fired him in the same sentence.. what was it about 2-3 years ago..

I'm a law dude down in TX.  This is, of course, an explanation of TX law.

You could sue.  Has nothing to do with them keeping you from having a pistol to protect yourself with.

Has everything to do with the company's NEGLIGENCE.  Negligence could be proved by showing:  a lack of security, notice that some wacko was coming buy and threatening you, etc...
If they knew there was a danger, and disregarded it, or if they should have known there was a danger, then you may prevail.  If some completely unforeseen event happens, then it may be hard to charge the company with negligence.  

Once again - has nothing to do with prohibiting weapons on the premisis.  In fact if they did allow weapons, and in some crazy turn of events the pistol goes off and hurts someone, then the company could be liable for negligence in allowing you to bring the pistol.  Sad but true.

dbrowne1 -

I'm not referring to a Constitutional right.

I'm referring to a natural, common sense right.

The fact that they can deny me the right to carry on their property assumes and presupposes the right exists.

So, if they deny me that right, they assume the responsibility.

The Constitution DOES NOT grant rights. And as pertaining to the Second Amendment, it merely recognizes a natural right.

Will I have legal standing for my suit?? WHO CARES???? Juries are well-known for ignoring legal standing.

The courts have already ruled that as long as the company has taken reasonable measures to provide security they cannot be held liable.  One ruling that I saw said something to the effect that the business cannot be predict and properly guard against all possible random criminal acts.

are you saying that they do it to protect themselves and not you..?

also if by having "Security"  makes them not "liable" cause "look we had "security"

any 400lb or 68 year old sec guard  will do? < when it comes to the company proving they had sec..>

Thanks for all the replies...actually the place I work is pretty safe.  I have never really feared for my safety.  I just was curious as for what responsibilities the company incurs by disallowing me to carry a firearm.  

Common sense seems to dictate that if it is legal for me to carry in this state, then a company prohibiting me from doing so is denying me my rights and therefore incurs the responsibilities of those actions.  


Again, thanks for all the replies...definitely made me think about legal points that I failed to consider in my initial thought on the matter.  Sloth

You know, I don't get it.

These rights were given us by Creator his own damn self, and they exist until such time as each of us is called back to Creator. So how, then, can these rights only exist in some places and not others? Makes no sense.

I don't know about you folks, but my rights exist where ever I am, every second of every day, until Creator calls me back.

Yes, in theory if they knew of a specific threat and failed to take REASONABLE measures, they might be negligent. Some courts have said that an intervening intentional tort does not get you out of liability for failure to provide reasonable security.

But if the company has generally good security (though not enough to stop an armed whacko...nobody has that) then they're off the hook. They have discharged their duty of care, and thus cannot be held liable for the gunman's actions. The mere fact that the security is inadequete to stop X or Y incident is not enough...it must be generally deficient.

As you say, the gun policy has nothing to so with this.

First - where in IN?  I still have family in Lafayette, Monticello, Monon, and Yeoman...

Second - find and check the IC on this one.  I know some RTC states, like Utah, very specifically spell out what it takes to be a "prohibited carry area" and what the responsibilites of that decision are for the owner/operator of the area, for instance (bear in mind this is on recall, but should be confirmable by looking thru UT law...)

1) a "Secure Area" must be certified by the state as to need, AND as to storage facilities for persons who would otherwise carry their sidearms.  "Secure Areas" MUST provide secure firearms storage AND liability coverage for any property lost (firearms) while stored by the facility.)

2) A "Secure Area" MUST post its status as such, and MUST provide access to the firearms storage at the main entrance (entrance commonly used by visitors and for common business.)  The storage facility may be lockers, gun-check room, or whatever, but it must be accessible immediately upon entry into the facility.

3) If these criteria are met, "violation" of the "Secure Area" is punishable under state law.

"Secure Areas" in UT are usually Hospitals and State Office, IIRC.  There is otherwise no problem with establishment of, carry to or from, or other aspects of "Secure Areas" there.  Also, if a facility is posted as a "Secure Area" and DOES NOT PROVIDE STORAGE OR COVERAGE, then it is NOT a "Secure Area" under UT law, and you (possibly) are not affected by the "Secure Area" regs.

Would anyone from UT care to reference and confirm or correct my memory?  When I read about this before, it actually DID make sense and was something that almost should serve as a model for compromise between CCW holders and the state's facilities for RTC legislation...

FFZ

You have no right (God-given or otherwise) to carry a gun on somebody elses property. If you take a step back here, you'll see that you, in fact, have no right to be on another's property AT ALL, but for the permission the owner grants you (which he may revoke). He may grant such permission subject to limitations, terms, and conditions...such as not carrying a gun. When you exceed the scope of your permission to enter and remain on the land you are a ______. Fill in the blank (hint: it begins with a T).



Gee, thanks. I never would have known that. Is that why it's called a "Charter of Negative Liberties"?

The Constitution doesn't recognize rights (other than in the preamble), per se. It merely acts as a restraint on the govt to prevent interference with them.

Also, the "endowed by the creator" language is not in the Constitution...it's only in the Declaration.



You're assuming that your claim will actually make it to a jury. You're forgetting pretrial motions (dismissal, summary judgement, etc.)

And then there was the 7-11 employee who was fired for GRABBING A ROBBER'S GUN AWAY... Something about 'If you resist, they will be more violent, so don't resist' being corporate policy...