No gun company policy and 30.06 sign

[Xander]

OK. How about this? Buy a ladder lately? Some guy steps on the paint can shelf, falls down, sues the ladder company for makng an "unsafe" product, and wins. So now ladders all have stickers on these shelves that say, "This is not a step".

The ladder company did not break any laws when they put the ladders on the market. No one forced the guy to buy one. And no one made him step on the paint can shelf. Yet he wins the suit anyway.

(Note: I don't know if a suit like this wa ever filed, but the ladder companies seem to be concerned enough about it to put these stickers, along with many, many others, on every ladder they sell.)

That's a fine example. Now that you're using a valid point of comparison, I'll quit being pedantic and leave you alone. For this thread anyway.

[Renegade]

It has everything to do with that, as that is what I commented on. The expectation of winning such a lawsuit, which goes RIGHT to what a jury might decide. Your statement was:

You can't really expect to win a liability suit where you are showing up to a place voluntarily and are disarmed voluntarily.

First let's clear something up....I never said that.

Hmm. Can't disagree with that.

[HKUSP45C]

That is not a valid comparison. There are laws that protect workers from harassment and certain (not all!) unsafe environments. A better example would be that nothing in the law, for instance, prevents a taxi cab company from sending a driver into a known bad part of town to pick up a fare. If you don't like driving into bad parts of town at night, your legal option is to quit, or refuse and be fired.

If you want a comparison for the potential recourse against a company for a policy that effects you negatively, make it the actions against companies for other matters of policy, not actions taken when laws were broken.

OK. How about this? Buy a ladder lately? Some guy steps on the paint can shelf, falls down, sues the ladder company for makng an "unsafe" product, and wins. So now ladders all have stickers on these shelves that say, "This is not a step".

The ladder company did not break any laws when they put the ladders on the market. No one forced the guy to buy one. And no one made him step on the paint can shelf. Yet he wins the suit anyway.

(Note: I don't know if a suit like this wa ever filed, but the ladder companies seem to be concerned enough about it to put these stickers, along with many, many others, on every ladder they sell.)

So somebody does something, within the law, and you get hurt as a result of it, and there is a potential tort action as a result.

Of course it matters how direct the connection is between the action and the harm. The defense could argue that even if you had a gun the BG accosting you at the ATM could have still hurt or killed you. I think the outcome of a suit would depend on the circumstances. Best case would be a guy with a CHL whacked by a rampage killer when he could very probably have protected himself and others had company policy allowed for him to be armed.

Just because it would be something new doesn't mean it isn't possible. New torts get created almost every day.

Only because I'm a glutton for punishment:

Yes, I know, people win unworthy lawsuits all the time.

I revise my statement to read "You can't really expect to have a valid legal standing for damages when you show up to a place voluntarily and disarm voluntaril, though you might still win from the insurance agency and even possibly the jury."

Though it seems long winded and a tad cumbersome in language. It never occurred to me that when I made that perfectly lucid argument someone would point out that it's possible to win money in America for ANYTHING, heck I thought that was common knowledge. My original point was that your employer, by disarming you, has done nothing, at all, to endanger you. Therefor you'd have no real legal standing.

Though, obviously you may still win.

Totrs, as I understand them, exist when the actions of another harm you through no fault of your own. In the case of an employer disarming you it simply wouldn't apply. Anymore than your employer would be responsible for body damage to your car during a hail storm in his or her parking lot.

[cbr600]

deleted

[HKUSP45C]

Totrs, as I understand them, exist when the actions of another harm you through no fault of your own. In the case of an employer disarming you it simply wouldn't apply. Anymore than your employer would be responsible for body damage to your car during a hail storm in his or her parking lot.

It's a long shot but you could argue bailment exists.

We might also consider the recent lawsuit won against McDonalds for criminal acts committed by third parties, because McDonalds didn't warn its employees about phone calls from people pretending to be police.

Ahhh! but see, McDs had a hand in it there too. They withheld information that could have lead to a different outcome.

By that logic, your suit would only work if your boss had been getting phone calls warning of a pending workplace assault and kept them to himself ... But then that argument would probably work regardless of the weapons policy.


Edit:
It just occurred to me that someone will likely make the logical leap that your employer disarming you would lead to a different outcome.
Nope, there is a very large difference between getting calls that are suspicious and thus providing clear evidence that "something" is afoot and not telling your employees than having a standing policy that prevents people from carrying when no evidence of a specific threat exists.

[anygunanywhere]

The truth is I don't believe anyone has successfully sued because they were forced to be unarmed.

I don't think anyone has ever lost a suit like that either. To my knowledge it has never been tested in court.

I *WILL* be the test case if I am ever a victime of violence while disarmed by my employer's policy.

I will be the test case if I am ever a victim of crime/violence while disarmed by not only my employer but anywhere. You will not be able to shovel enough dirt to cover up the stink.

Anygun

[anygunanywhere]

If your argument were valid there would be no basis for harrassment and/or workplace safety laws. After all, if the workplace was unpleasant or unsafe, you could simply leave, right?

That is not a valid comparison. There are laws that protect workers from harassment and certain (not all!) unsafe environments. A better example would be that nothing in the law, for instance, prevents a taxi cab company from sending a driver into a known bad part of town to pick up a fare. If you don't like driving into bad parts of town at night, your legal option is to quit, or refuse and be fired.

If you want a comparison for the potential recourse against a company for a policy that effects you negatively, make it the actions against companies for other matters of policy, not actions taken when laws were broken.

You certainly *can* sue to have policies rescinded, or when you've been injured because of a policy, but mudding the waters by attempting to compare these situations with situations where laws were broken only confuses the issue.

My employer's Workplace Violence training program specifically identifies violence perpetrated by individuals as one of the leading causes of job related death and injury in the US. Workplace violence is tracked as a category although there is not an OSHA standard for employers.

OSHA:

Violence in the workplace is a serious safety and health issue. Its most extreme form, homicide, is the fourth-leading cause of fatal occupational injury in the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), there were 564 workplace homicides in 2005 in the United States, out of a total of 5,702 fatal work injuries.

Almost 10% of workplace fatalities were homicides.

Also from the OSHA page:

There are currently no specific standards for workplace violence. However, this page highlights Federal Registers (rules, proposed rules, and notices) and standard interpretations (official letters of interpretation of the standards) related to workplace violence.

Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, often referred to as the General Duty Clause, requires employers to "furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees". Section 5(a)(2) requires employers to "comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act".

I pretty much think a lawsuit for failure to protect workers by disarming them would be successful.

Anygun

[seamusTX]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), there were 564 workplace homicides in 2005 in the United States, out of a total of 5,702 fatal work injuries.

Almost 10% of workplace fatalities were homicides.

What they conveniently don't say is that most of these homicides are related to robberies of retail workers, and most of the remainder are murders of women by estranged husbands and boyfriends.

Altercations between coworkers that escalate to homicide are extremely rare.

- Jim

[Keith B]

Altercations between coworkers that escalate to homicide are extremely rare.

- Jim

Except in schools and the Post Office where you can't carry.

[Isimanica]

Does this apply to my keeping my arms in my private car in their parking lot?

[seamusTX]

Does this apply to my keeping my arms in my private car in their parking lot?

I'm not sure what you mean by "this."

If a company has 30.06 signs at the entrance to a parking lot that they own or lease, and they catch you with a weapon in your car, and they want to press charges, they can have you arrested and charged with trespassing.

If they have 30.06 language in their policy manual, they can also have you arrested.

If they gave you spoken notification, for example, during new-hire orientation, they technically can have you arrested; but it might not stick.

In any case, they can fire you.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

Does this apply to my keeping my arms in my private car in their parking lot?

I'm not sure what you mean by "this."

If a company has 30.06 signs at the entrance to a parking lot that they own or lease, and they catch you with a weapon in your car, and they want to press charges, they can have you arrested and charged with trespassing.

If they have 30.06 language in their policy manual, they can also have you arrested.

If they gave you spoken notification, for example, during new-hire orientation, they technically can have you arrested; but it might not stick.

In any case, they can fire you.

- Jim

Just to clarify, 30.06 doesn't apply to guns that are locked inaccesibly in the trunk.

[seamusTX]

Just to clarify, 30.06 doesn't apply to guns that are locked inaccesibly in the trunk.

Good point. I'm sorry I forgot about that.

Also, 30.06 applies only to handguns, not long guns.

I can't figure out whether an employee who brings a weapon other than a concealed handgun onto the employer's property in violation of company policy is committing any crime, under Texas law.

- Jim

[boomerang]

Just to clarify, 30.06 doesn't apply to guns that are locked inaccesibly in the trunk.

Good point. I'm sorry I forgot about that.

Also, 30.06 applies only to handguns, not long guns.

There's another twist to consider. HB 1815 clarified that it is legal for (most) Texans to have a concealed handgun in their car without a CHL. A 30.06 sign applies to "a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" only.