company policy revisited

Not as far as I know- the company invariably hides behind the "third party intervention" defense.

I pose the question to inquire on perhaps the added liability of a compay in a case where someone who is trained to defend themselves was unable to and suffered bodily harm.

If there was a chance of confrontaion as a condition of employment there would be liability on the employer. For example, an armored car company refused to let their couriers carry firearms there would be a chance at a lawsuit if the employee was injured by an assailant. Your primary job is to protect whatever you're delivering.

Most jobs don't meet this condition. You can't stretch it and say I'm a trucker who can be highjacked or a jewelry saleman who can be robbed. Your primary job in these cases is to drive a truck or sell jewelry. Anyone can be a victim.

I always get the answer that it's the lawyers that advise to have this policy to avoid getting sued if someone were to do a horrible crime. I always tell them they are talking to the wrong attorneys.

Happens all the time, but you won't find sufficient documentation on it. People are assaulted all the time in my profession, but most of the companies don't allow carry by company policy.

You see it all the time on tv, disgruntled spouse or ex-worker shoots up the place. Boy, those weapons free zones work huh?

Griz22, not sure what you meant to say, but IMO I don't care the profession, we are all targets for those who wish us harm, so any company policy anywhere prohibitting an employee to defend themselfs is wrong period.

One would have to show that the employer knew of a specific threat, or even a generalized threat, and failed to take any reasonable measures to prevent it. For instance, maybe there is a series of violent crimes in the parking lot at night and the company fails to install lights, fails to hire security, etc. AND prohibits employees from CCW. OR another example, let's say the company has an employee that has been vocal about making verbal and/or physical threats and the company is derelict in taking any action against the employee and prohibits employees from CCW... In both examples say the worst happens. Yes, I think the company could be held liable in court, after the plaintiff victim employee spends thousands of dollars and years duking it out in court.

I personally won a case where a business owned a parking lot that was notorious for property crime and the company took no measures to secure the lot. They were on notice and didn't take reasonable measurs, so my client won after his property was damaged and stolen. Not a perfect metaphor but close.

Leadcounsel, given the fact that working in a convenience store has been ranked in the past as one of the most dangerous job in the country, do you think that an employee who's injured by an assailant/thief after being denied the right to CC on the job, would have a case against the employer?

Using a legally recognized defense is hardly hiding behind anything. Any one of us would, if sued or charged with a crime, is entitled to take advantage of any legally recognized defense.

Click to expand...

Just because it is legally recognized doesn't make it moral. It just means you got away with it. Slavery was once legal. All that legality means is that you won't be held accountable, it doesn't mean that you weren't responsible.

There is no liability carried by the company. Not carrying is your personal choice, so if you're unable to defend yourself, you have only yourself to blame for. It's your choice to comply or not, nobody's actually forcing your hand.

Think of it this way - a company policy prohibiting weapons is basically like your company telling you "your choice if you carry or not, but if we catch you, you're fired". If you want to keep your job, you either have to:
1. Not carry; or
2. Not get caught.

Which one you choose is up to you and how you weigh the risk of not having the gun when you most need it vs. the risk of getting caught and losing your job. Of course, if you don't care about the possibility of losing your job, then the choice is clear.

Would it be nice if you didn't have to worry about losing your job for carrying? Absolutely, but that's just how things are with some companies. Set your priorities and do what you think is best for you.

Griz22, not sure what you meant to say, but IMO I don't care the profession, we are all targets for those who wish us harm, so any company policy anywhere prohibitting an employee to defend themselfs is wrong period

Yo Mama, I basically agree with you. leadcounsel is obviously better at explaining the liability issue in easy to understand legalese.