But it does not. See post 6:basicblur said:...Being held responsible could depend on a few things:
1. Did you charge admission?
2. Did you set / post certain rules for entering your property?...
Frank Ettin said:...In general, a business will not be held responsible for the criminal acts of a third party. The few times in which a business has been held liable, there have been some unique circumstances, e. g., a bar can have problems if it serves someone who is obviously intoxicated or who is known to be a problem; or a while ago, a Denny's had to pay as a result of a late night incident, but only because there had been prior incidents so it was on notice that its late hours presented special risks....
And relying on those "court" TV shows for legal knowledge is a lousy idea. One can easily be misled to the wrong conclusion, as you were here.basicblur said:...Years ago I remember seeing one o' those legal shows on TV (the one with the retired judges as arbiters), where someone was suing over the coat check person losing their coat.
The judge's ruling hinged on whether or not the coat check person charged a fee.
The reason the ruling in the case on the TV show hinged on whether the coat check person charged a fee is that checking a coat involves the law of bailment. Bailment is one person (the bailor) giving an item of personal property to another (the bailee) for safekeeping. Under the Common Law the bailee's standard of care is higher in the case of a bailment for hire (when the bailee charges a fee) than in the case of a gratuitous bailment (where the bailee does not charge a fee).
The law of bailment has nothing to do with premises liability.