Office shootings and CCW use

[30 cal slob]

i remember years ago when target sports (on woodward ave) had a big sign on the front door proclaiming:

"CCW's NOT HONORED HERE"

i guess that changed when MI went to shall-issue.

sorry for the digression, all this talk about home....

 

[glummer]

deck52

If the company has a no guns policy and has signs posted stating the policy, the company management can point to the signs and say "we took steps to make this a safe workplace - guns are prohibited on XYZ's property".

I would like to see some solid case law cites on that before I believe it. The position you describe is:
A) You foresee a danger “X” (this throws away your 1st line of legal defense - unforeseeability.)
B) You adopt a policy to deal with “X” (thus accepting responsibility, and destroying your 2nd line of defense)
C) Your chosen policy fails, because it is predictably worthless – it does nothing to actually deal with “X” (which makes you culpable.)
Exactly how does all this protect you from liability?


GRIZZ22

In the insurance company's eyes it's okay if the disgruntled employee or stickup man comes on the premises with a gun. Then it's not their fault.

How is it not their fault? They have made it easier for the damage to occur. If they required a fire policy of using gasoline in fire extinguishers, would it not be their fault?

Can anyone point to a REAL case where such a policy was protective?

 

[GRIZ22]

Have you ever seen a policy from an insurance company that requires this or just repeating internet myth?


Very common clause in some policies in the NY/NJ area.

In the insurance company's eyes it's okay if the disgruntled employee or stickup man comes on the premises with a gun. Then it's not their fault.

Hey I agree with you. I said "in the insurance companies eyes".

 

[Smurfslayer]

I'll ask a different question.

Have you ever seen a policy from an insurance company that requires this or just repeating internet myth?


Very common clause in some policies in the NY/NJ area.

Can anyone produce a copy of a policy that in this manner prohibits firearms?

I know that this is often repeated as an excuse for gun show zip ties, but to date the only copy anyone has ever produced turned out to say "guns to be sold must be tied". I'm not saying that there isn't a poilicy out there, gun show, business, or otherwise that doesn't have a no guns clause, just that I've never actually seen one

 

[ABBOBERG]

Our corporation has a "no guns" sign on the front door, but then one day I saw a guy with a blue jacket walking in with a Glock hostered on his hip as he went into the men's room.
I immediately told the receptionist that this man was carrying a gun, violating the policy stated on the front door, and she said "he's the exception because he has to carry money". Apparantly, he was from Brinks and needed to grab the cash from the cafeteria till. What I don't understand is how a few hundred bucks of cash is more valuable than the lives of a company's employees?

 

[deck52]

I would like to see some solid case law cites on that before I believe it. The position you describe is:
A) You foresee a danger “X” (this throws away your 1st line of legal defense - unforeseeability.)
B) You adopt a policy to deal with “X” (thus accepting responsibility, and destroying your 2nd line of defense)
C) Your chosen policy fails, because it is predictably worthless – it does nothing to actually deal with “X” (which makes you culpable.)
Exactly how does all this protect you from liability?

I would love to see a precident set that posting a business made the business a more dangerous place and the business held responsible.

 

[TallPine]

What I don't understand is how a few hundred bucks of cash is more valuable than the lives of a company's employees?

Because the cash belongs to a corporation. Your cash (or life) is not valuable enough to defend with a gun.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Can anyone produce a copy of a policy that in this manner prohibits firearms?

My father sells large Commercial Package policies to businesses for Allstate and other companies.

I asked him about this once and he said he had NEVER had an underwriter ask about it and has never seen anything in writing.

His opinion was that this was WAY down the list of things an underwriter would care about unless shooting was a direct part of the business, firing range for example.

Insurance companies worry about things that have cost them money in the past, they do very little predicting.

Actuaries are their life blood. If it hasn't happened before, it doesn't hit the radar.

 

[K-Romulus]

The Brady Campaign has conveniently assembled a legal brief on WHY (it thinks) employers should ban CCW: http://www.gunlawsuits.org/pdf/features/articles/gunsnbusiness.pdf

(quote from pg 17)
Further, nearly all scholars that have identified a profile of a “typical” workplace killer
have stated that an infatuation with firearms is one of the elements of the profile.71 This suggests
that employees who may pose the greatest risk are also the most likely to obtain a CCW license
in order to carry a gun to work. Yet, pointedly, a person fitting the typical “workplace-killer
profile” would seldom be disqualified in any “shall-issue” CCW state from receiving a CCW
license.72 If a violent incident were to be perpetrated by a CCW licensee who fit this profile, a
business’s prior decision to permit gun-carrying on its premises might be construed as condoning
such violence. As will be seen below, this could raise potential legal problems.

and

(quote from pg 19)
Are businesses more likely to be held legally liable if they permit guns on
their business premises and a gun injury occurs?

Yes. Companies have a legal obligation in most circumstances to protect their employees
and customers from foreseeable acts of violence on company premises. If a company fails to
meet this obligation, it may be held liable. Injured parties might sue under theories of
negligence, negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, respondeat superior, or failure to maintain
a safe workplace. In addition, employers can be sanctioned for a dangerous workplace by the
Secretary of Labor under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSHA”).

If a gun injury occurs, under each of these theories of recovery, a company that permits
guns on its premises will be at a significantly higher risk of liability than a company that chooses
to remain gun-free. Indeed, as a leading employment-law specialist has said:

Companies that allow employees to carry concealed weapons are setting
themselves up for an enormously expensive judgment if a customer is injured or
killed. . . . You’re talking millions and millions of dollars. And think of the
consequences, with customers and employees shooting. Can you imagine a
firefight? I’d hate to be in the crossfire.76

and

(quote from pg 23)
In one notable case -- DiCosala v. Kay99 -- the Boy Scouts of America were held liable
for negligently hiring and retaining a camp counselor who kept loaded handguns in his camp
quarters. A 6-year-old boy was unintentionally shot in the neck when another counselor, playing
with the boy in the gun-owner’s quarters, picked up one of his guns and, thinking it unloaded,
fired it at the boy. The court held that the counselor’s mere possession of guns, which was
known by the Boy Scouts, posed a danger to members of the public and a foreseeable risk that a
gun injury would take place.100 There was no evidence that the gun-owning counselor was a bad
character. The case turned, instead, on the heightened risks entailed in knowingly allowing guns
in the Boy Scout camp. The DiCosala court held that the Boy Scouts could be liable for
negligently failing to supervise the gun owner because he maintained a dangerous instrumentality
-- a loaded gun -- on its premises. “[T]he owner and operator of the camp owed an obligation to
see to it that a dangerous instrumentality, such as a firearm, be removed or safeguarded and
secured,” since a higher degree of care is required with respect to such dangerous instruments.101

The DiCosala case has potentially huge ramifications for companies that allow customers
and employees to carry guns onto their property. First, it imposes a duty on companies to see to
it that guns be “removed or safeguarded and secured.” Thus, if a company chooses not to make
its premise gun-free, it must somehow “safeguard and secure” the guns carried on its property, or
risk legal liability if someone is ever injured with one of those guns. Second, it establishes the
principle that allowing guns into a business setting poses a foreseeable risk that gun injuries will
take place therein. Since companies are under a duty to guard against foreseeable risks, they
would be wise not to allow guns in.

and

(quote from pg 32)
Fortunately, there is an appropriate response to the legal risks associated with increased
gun carrying on business premises -- keep guns out. In the opinion of one legal analyst:

Carrying a concealed weapon may not be a crime or a tort, but it is a dangerous
activity. An employer will minimize its potential negligence liability by enforcing
a strict no-weapons policy -- [because] it is far more foreseeable that an employee
will be injured in a workplace full of guns and an environment reminiscent of the
Old West, than one in which weapons are prohibited.124

The kicker:

(Quote from pg 41)
One concern that businesses which consider a gun-free policy have is that such a policy
may be unenforceable because the guns carried by CCW licensees must be concealed. This is a
false concern. Companies adopting a gun-free policy need not search customers or employees, or
set up metal detectors at company entrances, for the policy to be effective in reducing the risk of
gun violence on company property.142 A simple notice that persons carrying concealed weapons
must leave their weapons outside will prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms onto
business property. Anyone who violates the gun-free policy may risk criminal penalties. In
addition, employees who violate a gun-free policy can be disciplined or fired. These are ample
enough incentives to ensure widespread compliance with a gun-free policy.

Companies should also not be concerned that by adopting a gun-free policy they are
legally guaranteeing the safety of all customers and employees should a criminal bring a gun onto
company property and shoot someone. Unless a specific store location has previously been hit by
crime, such criminal attacks are generally unforeseeable, and thus companies are not likely to be
held liable for failing to prevent them.143 More importantly, the appropriate response to the
potential for criminal attacks is to beef up company security, not to allow customers and
employees to arm themselves independently and engage in an uncontrolled shootout on company
property. As discussed above, such an incident could have disastrous legal consequences for
companies that are not prepared.144

And a whole webpage on the issue: http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/workplace/

 

[Standing Wolf]

Because the cash belongs to a corporation. Your cash (or life) is not valuable enough to defend with a gun.

I'm sorry to say Tall Pine has nailed it.

Personally, I figure jobs are a lot easier to replace than lives.