NineseveN,
The store was in Washington state. As far as not serving a drunk customer alcohol, there are actually written laws on the books regarding such behavior. There is probably no need to post such a sign just like it is not required that you post a sign saying "no stabbing fellow diners".
And there are laws on the books about CCW, or did you not realize that part? Some states say signs are legally binding, some do not recognize them (i.e. one may carry concealed legally as part of their CCW permit but the owner of the property can ask one to leave and if they don't, it's trespassing). Some states you can carry into a bar, some force open carry in bars, some say no carry in bars at all. It makes no difference, there are laws on the books pertaining to all manners of conduct and actions.
If a person brings a book of matches into a tobacco shop and negligently sets the place on fire, there is very little legal standing for someone to sue the owner for injuries despite the fact that the injuries occurred on their property due to an event out of their control (the fire resulting from negligent conduct of a patron with matches) involving a foreseeable item in the possession of a patron (i.e. obviously someone that is shopping in a tobacco store would have some method of causing fire to smoke the tobacco). Sure, a person could file a suit, anyone can file a suit, but this type of suit would likely be thrown out in any state that does not have code for tort that describes this particular type of suit as actionable by a plaintiff.
I hate to break it to you. No matter what state you are in you can be held liable for injuries incurred on your property. Just a fact of life. Not one I agree with but just one I have to live with...
The operative word is
can, but it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be, there are still standards of law, even in civil matters. Sure, the burden is lowered, but if a suit has no legal standing, it doesn't get to the point of awarding damages. And following that logic, one could sue a gun shop owner even if they posted a sign, because anyone can file a suit, what matters is if it is a credible suit that will go to trial. In some states, I can see the gun shop being sued and brought into court, in others, based on some state laws and legal/political climates, it would be thrown out.
I find it funny that you resort to trying to bash liberalism as part of your argument instead of just siting facts. You seem to be assuming alot about me and not sticking to the reality of this situation. My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the reality of the situation. I am not saying I agree that someone should be liable for such an event..I am just saying they have to be aware that they can be held responsible and do what they can to protect themselves.
No bash intended, as I believe I stated. I get the impression that you truly feel that the gun shop owner should be liable if they don't post a sign, which is not the reality of the situation. It's not a bash that some of the core values of liberalism involve a lack of personal responsibility, I'm not insulting liberals or liberalism, but it takes a village, remember?
Look, I know you're not a lawyer, and my time as a pre-law student at the University of Pittsburgh before I moved on into computer related study doesn't amount to enough for me to consider myself an authority, so we can agree to disagree. There are lawyers on this site, if one decides to chime in and clarify that would be wonderful.
The sad part of it is, if we had not posted the regulation we would have probably been cleared in court anyway but after a long and costly court case. So posting the sign was well worth it. Nothing you can agrue will change that reality.
Probably does not define reality. What might have happened does not constitute reality.
When one enters a video game store, they have a reasonable belief that they will not be hit with paint markers, in a paint marker store, that standard is skewed. The patron does take responsibility for some of the risk involved in injuries sustained from negligent acts that were reasonably forseen based on their conduct or location. If a person gets hit with a baseball at a baseball game, so long as the stadium or other parties are not found to have been grossly negligent (i.e. not putting up regulated barriers or failing to keep them in operation or maintained) or directly contributing to an unforeseen event that caused the patron injury, there is no actionable suit that would likely stand up in court.
If a person goes into a gun shop, it is obvious that there will be guns there, if an injury is sustained as a result of a negligent patron that is beyond the control of the property owner, so long as the property owner does not directly contribute to the injury or the action that caused the injury (i.e. handing a patron a loaded firearm) and is not found to be grossly negligent (i.e. leaving a loaded gun out and unattended on a counter), there is very little basis for any suit. Sure someone could theoretically sue, but they could have done that anyway no matter if a sign was posted or not (especially in states that do not recognize any legal basis for such signs other than an informative warning and a basis for claiming trespassing).
