TexasCHLforum.com

Pawpaw wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: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.

Pawpaw wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: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 wrote: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.

hovercat wrote:The store owner would not be creating the dangerous condition. The criminal would be the one doing that.

I disagree. Using my analogy, that is like saying the water created the dangerous situation as opposed to the store owner who held the water balloon fight.

The store owner advertised to criminals that they would find easy targets in his store, he then compelled the people in his store to give up their ability to defend themselves. These actions created the dangerous situation.

To use another analogy, if I know that my dog is aggressive toward unknown children, and I invite 10 kids to my son's birthday party at my house, I should be responsible for securing my animal and should be liable if he gets loose and bites one of the kids. Yes, the kids parents might know I have a dog, and they decided to let their kid come to the party, but I still have responsibility to take reasonable measures to ensure everyone's safety.

I support this 100%. Here is how I see it.

A property owner has an obligation to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of people they invite onto their property. If a business decides to create an unsafe environment within their store, they should have the obligation to take reasonable measures to mitigate that risk and ensure the safety of their customers.

This is no different than a grocery store that hosts a water balloon fight in their store (creates an unsafe situation), and then fails to have anyone mop up the water from the tile floors. If a business creates a Free Fire Zone in their store, a customer should reasonably expect that the business has taken full responsibility to mitigate the danger to their customers.