TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:V7a, interesting post. It seems to be very different from how many are portraying the law. Is there more to it that may impose liability as,many seem to think or did you post the entire law?

Thanks for posting it.

The original code says there can be liability if they post a sign and a patron is injured. The amendment is saying that can't be liable if they DON'T post a sign. Does the amendment completely replace the original text, or just add to it?

I tend to consider the concept of reasonableness, as the law often does. Is expecting a business (say, a restaurant) to provide protection a reasonable expectation? Is it reasonable to expect a restaurant to provide armed personnel who can intervene if a customer suddenly jumps up and starts spraying people? What about the 5, 10, 20 people he kills before the restaurant's resident Rambo can shoot him? Would there be liability for those deaths? Will the law apply to all businesses? A 100,000 sq. ft. big box? McDonald's? Convenience stores? The shoe shop? The little gift shop with a little old lady working inside that gets 2 customers a day? What if 5 guys crash in with guns, not just one? Is the corner store going to have a whole SWAT team sitting there 24/7 waiting to leap into action?

I suspect a court would find it unreasonable to expect a business to provide this kind of protection, with there subsequently being no "negligence" on which to base civil liability, and that's notwithstanding the fact that the customer makes a conscious choice to enter the business in the first place. I know they passed that law in Tennessee, but right now it's just words on paper; I have grave doubts that it could stand up to a strong legal test, if and when that happens.

Just my 'pinion.