Tennessee Bill would allow lawsuits over gun-free zones

[Pawpaw]

A husband and wife decide to spend the night at a Motel 6 because they allow pets.

They are the victims of an attempted robbery by someone that forces their way into the room.

The husband fights back, killing the bad guy, but is himself shot to pieces.

Husband and wife sue the Motel 6 for not providing adequate security.

What's the difference?

[suthdj]

Don't know if I could get on board with that or not.

I am a staunch supporter of property rights and as much as I dislike gun free zones...it should remain the choice of the property owner.

We already live in such litigious times...I have to wonder if more laws are really necessary....where simply talking to the owner might be the better avenue.

Exactly is it the states job to make it a criminal act because property owner is afraid or unwilling to tell someone to leave.

[Soccerdad1995]

A husband and wife decide to spend the night at a Motel 6 because they allow pets.

They are the victims of an attempted robbery by someone that forces their way into the room.

The husband fights back, killing the bad guy, but is himself shot to pieces.

Husband and wife sue the Motel 6 for not providing adequate security.

What's the difference?

If the Motel 6 did not take reasonable measures to provide security, then they will be paying the husband and wife some damages. These will be greater if the Motel 6 had previous incidents / knew that it was located in a high crime area, and still did not take reasonable precautions.

What I am saying if that if the Motel 6 also posted a Free Fire Zone sign announcing that there were unarmed victims inside, the hotel should be even more likely to pay damages.

All of this assumes that the hotel did not take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their guests.

[Pawpaw]

A husband and wife decide to spend the night at a Motel 6 because they allow pets.

They are the victims of an attempted robbery by someone that forces their way into the room.

The husband fights back, killing the bad guy, but is himself shot to pieces.

Husband and wife sue the Motel 6 for not providing adequate security.

What's the difference?

If the Motel 6 did not take reasonable measures to provide security, then they will be paying the husband and wife some damages. These will be greater if the Motel 6 had previous incidents / knew that it was located in a high crime area, and still did not take reasonable precautions.

What I am saying if that if the Motel 6 also posted a Free Fire Zone sign announcing that there were unarmed victims inside, the hotel should be even more likely to pay damages.

All of this assumes that the hotel did not take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their guests.

You completely missed my point.

What I was asking is what is the difference between the (real life) scenario I laid out and a business being held responsible for harm that comes about as a result of their putting up their "defenseless victim zone" sign?

[Soccerdad1995]

A husband and wife decide to spend the night at a Motel 6 because they allow pets.

They are the victims of an attempted robbery by someone that forces their way into the room.

The husband fights back, killing the bad guy, but is himself shot to pieces.

Husband and wife sue the Motel 6 for not providing adequate security.

What's the difference?

If the Motel 6 did not take reasonable measures to provide security, then they will be paying the husband and wife some damages. These will be greater if the Motel 6 had previous incidents / knew that it was located in a high crime area, and still did not take reasonable precautions.

What I am saying if that if the Motel 6 also posted a Free Fire Zone sign announcing that there were unarmed victims inside, the hotel should be even more likely to pay damages.

All of this assumes that the hotel did not take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their guests.

You completely missed my point.

What I was asking is what is the difference between the (real life) scenario I laid out and a business being held responsible for harm that comes about as a result of their putting up their "defenseless victim zone" sign?

There is no difference in one sense. In both cases, the business could be liable if they did not take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their guests / customers. In determining whether the measures taken were "reasonable", other factors would come into play.

Where there is a difference is that I am assuming the owner of your hypothetical Motel 6 did not take active measures to make the guests less safe, like the store owner does by posting a valid 30.06 / 30.07 sign. By taking active measures to decrease the safety of their guests, the business owner is increasing the likelihood of being found liable for any resultant injuries.

A more accurate comparison would be with a motel owner who blocks open the back door leading to guest rooms so anyone can enter. A bad guy does enter and assaults guests. The motel owner is more likely to be liable because he took active measures that decreased guest safety.

[Pawpaw]

There is no difference in one sense. In both cases, the business could be liable if they did not take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their guests / customers. In determining whether the measures taken were "reasonable", other factors would come into play.

Where there is a difference is that I am assuming the owner of your hypothetical Motel 6 did not take active measures to make the guests less safe, like the store owner does by posting a valid 30.06 / 30.07 sign. By taking active measures to decrease the safety of their guests, the business owner is increasing the likelihood of being found liable for any resultant injuries.

A more accurate comparison would be with a motel owner who blocks open the back door leading to guest rooms so anyone can enter. A bad guy does enter and assaults guests. The motel owner is more likely to be liable because he took active measures that decreased guest safety.

Now you're on track.

Oh and BTW, neither the scenario I laid out nor the Motel 6 in question are hypothetical:

http://krqe.com/2015/10/15/cnn-journali ... buquerque/

[rotor]

First off 30.06 and 30.07 are not just posted at a business. They might be at a hospital or other facility that you might be brought to for care without your approval. It could happen at your kid's school which is gun-free (although not posted) . My local hospital does have armed security but not every facility does. You can be killed at a hospital by a terrorist or BG with a gun as well. So, the argument that you don't have to enter to me is not a valid argument, especially at a posted medical facility. I would support such a bill.

Right now though what prevents anyone that is injured in a gun-free zone from filing a suit? The success of such action is questionable but I would like to see someone do it. Finally, what happens if this happens in a red 51% TABC site? Who do you sue, Texas? As a non-alcohol user I still go to places posted 51% but am in a gun-free zone. I don't like it and I really don't understand why it should involve me.

[MeMelYup]

Isn't this more reason that we should try to get exempted like police officers from 46.03?

Making places that post 30.06 responsible for the safety of a person licensed is a good idea also.

[mikeb95]

I was just thinking about this issue especially if it is a place you have to be at, sporting events, walking/driving to/from work. Where does your ability to protect yourself being limited reside on someone else to protect once your right is taken away?

[Soccerdad1995]

There is no difference in one sense. In both cases, the business could be liable if they did not take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their guests / customers. In determining whether the measures taken were "reasonable", other factors would come into play.

Where there is a difference is that I am assuming the owner of your hypothetical Motel 6 did not take active measures to make the guests less safe, like the store owner does by posting a valid 30.06 / 30.07 sign. By taking active measures to decrease the safety of their guests, the business owner is increasing the likelihood of being found liable for any resultant injuries.

A more accurate comparison would be with a motel owner who blocks open the back door leading to guest rooms so anyone can enter. A bad guy does enter and assaults guests. The motel owner is more likely to be liable because he took active measures that decreased guest safety.

Now you're on track.

Oh and BTW, neither the scenario I laid out nor the Motel 6 in question are hypothetical:

http://krqe.com/2015/10/15/cnn-journali ... buquerque/

I take back the "hypothetical" part. Thanks for posting the link.

In this case, it appears that the lawsuit is based on several documented factors where the property owner was aware of a risk to their customers and did nothing to mitigate that risk. I think the same argument could be made for a store (or hotel) that posts a 30.06 sign. The sign itself heightens risk for their customers. This necessitates the implementation of safety measures that will address the risk. In the 30.06 case, IMHO, the burden should be even higher since the property owner is taking actions that increase the risk.

[The Wall]

I didn't read every posting so if this has been asked and answered I don't really care.
Would this apply to any private property, like your house? Having laws that protect against law suits for protecting yourself are more important as far as I'm concerned.

[TexasCajun]

Be careful what you wish for. The TN law would essentially create liability for the actions of a 3rd party. And that would open up gun and ammo manufacturers to lawsuit when their products are used in crimes.

[Scott Farkus]

An insurance company I once worked for insured a convenience store in which a man was killed in the parking lot during a drive by shooting. He wasn't even a customer, he was just hanging out talking to somebody. His survivors sued the property owner on grounds that the lighting in the parking lot was insufficient for some reason. Of course we settled because a trial would have cost more. There are literally thousands of similar stories I and others could tell. I don't see any difference between that and what this Tennessee law is trying to do.

While I hate to throw more business the trial lawyer's way, this is another example of how our respect for property rights, particularly commercial property rights, work to our detriment. We really need to rethink our approach to this type of stuff, imho.