Kansas No CCW signs

[Pepper46]

To those who asked if no-carry stores incur liability for rendering you defenseless, the answer I think is no - they owe no "duty" to see that you are protected. No duty = no tort = no damages.

If that is correct, why do they put up signs warning of wet floors, construction and the like?
They do have an obligation for your safety, why else do they settle these lawsuits for slip and fall type injuries?
I think this will have to be one of those deals for a court ruling.

 

[FranklyTodd]

Pepper - interesting thought...

You might be right, it would certainly be interesting, and I think it's at least close enough the lawyer wouldn't get in trouble for bringing it (lawyer can get disciplined for bringing a "frivolous" suit) but I still would put chance of recovery at ZERO percent, if a client came to me. The case might be interesting, and generate news coverage, though.

The conditions you cite invoke premises liability, and a storeowner does have a duty to protect customers (called invitees in the law) against any known unsafe conditions, or any unsafe conditions a reasonable inspection would reveal. That's why the grocery store can be liable for a banana peel slip even if they didn't actually know about the peel, but only if it had been there long enough that they SHOULD have found it and cleaned it up. In most jurisdictions, if someone is just in your house (not a customer) you only have to protect them against known conditions, and don't have to do an inspection to discover unsafe conditions.

From what I know/recall (I don't practice personal injury law), an intential criminal act of a third party almost always cuts off liability from a lesser-culpable party. So in your scenario, I assume the damages come from some maniac third party (not a store employee) shooting the place up. Even though that happens way too often, I doubt a court would find liability for anyone except the shooter.

NOTE: Nothing above should be construed as legal advice or the practice of law in any way!