TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:Wondering what kind of potential liability is created by giving the false appearance of safety and security when in fact, there really isn't much and the wanding is as ineffective as is being discussed here. If a store or private enterprise did such, I think they would be held liable if something bad happened. See Cracker Barrel thread where one seems to think they may be held liable for not responding to a domestic dispute as one thinks they should. I don't see where Cracker Barrel provides the appearance of security like they do at the state fair.

Among other thing there is the fact that they hire outside security for screenings. The security company would take the initial hit, usually up to a mil or so and only after that would the fair, which is it's own separate entity, be liable. There is also the issue where the Fair doesn't have to have perfect security they just have to make a reasonable effort. If no where is any more secure than the Fair then there is limited liability for the fair. Anyone can sue for anything so nothing will keep lawsuits from happening, but you try and stack the deck as best you can to maximize your arguments and lessen the other sides. The wanding theater may not make the Fair more secure but it does provide an argument that they are trying to make the Fair safer. In court the more effort they can show the less someone is likely to get and that correlates to smaller settlements if they negotiate when someone sues.