QUESTION: Legal liability to Protect 2nd parties from other 3rd parties

[brotherbill3]

[h=2]This is mainly for the legal eagles like Kirk, Hough, etc. ... etc ... and/or for LEO types ... though others can chime in ...

I am curious about what precedents, cases, laws that govern the legal liability / responibility of "entities /first parties" to protect a 2nd party from harm from a 3rd party. ...

For example ... per Gonzales v Castle Rock, police are not liable / responsible to protect an individual from harm .... I believe that there are several other in this area.

Similarly, the Virginia State Supreme court recently ruled that VA TECH UNIV. did not have a liability to protect students from the actions of 3rd parties ...

I ask in light of the decision of the IN Appeals court allowing the suit against martinsville school corp. (And wondering if the school being "in loco parentis" affects this) and the constant battle we face w carry rights ... most exemplified by case such as perulta, drake or similar (hopefully) heading to supreme court ... but also with the open carry battles stemming from theTexas Open Carry activists (jack-in-the-box / chipotle / starbucks) vs Moms Demand - who I will remind you want to reduce areas and restrict ALL carry (including CC) - and as we have a dozen thread bashing both sets of these people - lets stick to the main question here please ... if we can ...

I've asked this elsewhere so to further clarify:
I am not asking about rendering aid; but about an entity being held accountable for providing protection for a (disarmed for any reason) person ...

And go .... thanks!!!! [/h]

 

[ModernGunner]

Generally speaking, the 2nd party entities aren't liable, but IF they're going to limit or diminish the ability of people to defend their own person (and loved ones, etc.) then they should be 100% responsible, and 100% liable, IMO.

Make that the precendent, and Chicago will have a billion new lawsuits before May 30th, 2014. LOL!

 

[HoughMade]

In broad generalities, and I am speaking of civil liability here, there is no affirmative duty to take actions to prevent or protect against, a criminal attack of a third party unless there is a "special relationship" between the parties (1st and 2nd parties) OR such a duty has been undertaken. There is a duty which landowners have to invitees to take reasonable steps to protect against a foreseeable criminal attack, but a lot of facts go into what is foreseeable and what is not.

A special relationship would include common carrier and passenger, hotel owner and guest, school and child, well, essentially anywhere you give up control over your person in reliance on the representations of another that they will look after you.

As for forseeability of attacks, here's some light reading for you:

PARAGON FAMILY RESTAURANT v. BARTOLINI - FindLaw

http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06301001rdr.pdf

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Seems like an uphill battle in suing a business when they aren't the ones who hurt you, both with case law and with establishing the facts. I'm guessing the main thrust of the post is if you get injured or killed at a "no guns" business. Given that business with and without "no guns" signs get robbed and/or have shootings, I don't see that you'd be able to prove the sign endangered you in any way or that they had any duties beyond a store with a sign. You *know* the rules prior to going, its not a mandatory attendance, yet you chose to go anyway without making any arrangements for security you apparently feel you need. You'd have to show you could have/would have intervened successfully had you been allowed to carry, etc.

Conversely, one of the reasons apologists for "no carry" gun stores always give is "liability". What if you allow guns and an ND injures or kills someone? Are you liable for that, as well? Or do we consider that unforeseeable by the business?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I am curious about what precedents, cases, laws that govern the legal liability / responibility of "entities /first parties" to protect a 2nd party from harm from a 3rd party. ...

In what context?

My tenant? My customer? My prisoner? Some dude diddy bopping down the calle?

It depends.

 

[brotherbill3]

In what context?

My tenant? My customer? My prisoner? Some dude diddy bopping down the calle?

It depends.

I guess I meant "on the entities property" - thinking businesses, schools, etc. more like what BBI way saying:

Seems like an uphill battle in suing a business when they aren't the ones who hurt you, both with case law and with establishing the facts. I'm guessing the main thrust of the post is if you get injured or killed at a "no guns" business. Given that business with and without "no guns" signs get robbed and/or have shootings, I don't see that you'd be able to prove the sign endangered you in any way or that they had any duties beyond a store withOUT a sign. You *know* the rules prior to going, its not a mandatory attendance, yet you chose to go anyway without making any arrangements for security you apparently feel you need. You'd have to show you could have/would have intervened successfully had you been allowed to carry, etc.

Conversely, one of the reasons apologists for "no carry" gun stores always give is "liability". What if you allow guns and an ND injures or kills someone? Are you liable for that, as well? Or do we consider that unforeseeable by the business?

yes to the Bold Underlined part - that is the main emphasis.

Bold RED I think I've corrected this to fit better with what you're saying and I'm trying to find some support for/against;
my guess is there is little precendent for Entity "A" being responsible for "person B"s safety (who is disarmed by policy, law, whatever) from harm from "Criminal C" which is a 'general risk' of life ...

BOLD BLUE - isn't this why we choose to carry? we realize that we are responsible for our own safety and accept that?
Could have or could have had the ability to if?? Sadly we accept limits on the IF up front instead of after the fact.

@ Hough - I will try to review the links later

Thanks everyone so far.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You are asking about an enormous area of the law which is usually entitled "Premises Liability" and usually done by people on the back of the phone book.

Indiana premises liability focuses on the relationship between the parties and is very fact sensitive. You can take a semester class on it.

Maybe start with a law school/bar review outline, then check on line if you are interested in learning more. Maybe there is a lecture on youtube?

 

[Bravo-4-2]

You are asking about an enormous area of the law which is usually entitled "Premises Liability" and usually done by people on the back of the phone book.

Indiana premises liability focuses on the relationship between the parties and is very fact sensitive. You can take a semester class on it.

Maybe start with a law school/bar review outline, then check on line if you are interested in learning more. Maybe there is a lecture on youtube?

Absolutely. Just posting to emphasize the enormity of this area of law. You couldn't possibly post a hypothetical here that would control all of the variables to the point that a reasoned answer could be provided for your query. So very many variables that influence liability.

 

[brotherbill3]

Great. Thanks. well - this may be too much to manage ... more irons in the fire than I can deal with right now anyway. drat.

Any insight you would have to point me in a starting direction or repeated precedents or anything?

I am looking for things along the lines of what I had added via BBI's post ...

- focusing on 2A / self defense type issues ...
(and probably related to busineses and customers at that) -

Thanks ...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

BOLD BLUE - isn't this why we choose to carry? we realize that we are responsible for our own safety and accept that?

Yes. And if its so important to you to carry, then simply don't go places you can't. Prior to being LEO, I based my vacations on where I could and could not carry on an Indiana LTCH.

Let's say you go to Chipotle and get shot during a robbery. You argue that you could have avoided getting shot if you'd been able to carry by their policy. I would argue that you knew up front what the policies where, VOLUNTARILY WENT THERE ANYWAY BEING FULLY INFORMED OF THAT, thus you understood the risks and chose to engage in the action anyway. I would further argue that since Hardee's, who does not have a no firearms policy, also gets robbed, the policy of allowing or not allowing guns is not what allowed the robbery to occur.

That also avoids the second part of my post. If we're going to make them liable for every bad thing that happens when they ban guns, are we also going to make them liable for everything bad that happens by allowing guns?

 

[brotherbill3]

Yes. And if its so important to you to carry, then simply don't go places you can't. Prior to being LEO, I based my vacations on where I could and could not carry on an Indiana LTCH.

It was intended to be more 'rhetorical question' ... similarly "what's a vacation" ... :clueless: ... :smile: ... ok serious matters

Let's say you go to Chipotle and get shot during a robbery. You argue that you could have avoided getting shot if you'd been able to carry by their policy. I would argue that you knew up front what the policies where, VOLUNTARILY WENT THERE ANYWAY BEING FULLY INFORMED OF THAT, thus you understood the risks and chose to engage in the action anyway. I would further argue that since Hardee's, who does not have a no firearms policy, also gets robbed, the policy of allowing or not allowing guns is not what allowed the robbery to occur.

I am asking more to try and present an argument to the people in teh middle ( between - pro 2A / pro carry side and the Anti's ... i.e. the majority) - that this stance (I.e. by chipotle, et al.) does NOTHING to protect customers and to remind people ... that the stores liability for their safety from criminals is minimal ... because ...

That also avoids the second part of my post. If we're going to make them liable for every bad thing that happens when they ban guns, are we also going to make them liable for everything bad that happens by allowing guns?

I sure hope NOT ... at some point it has to break down ... you obviously can't hold property owners liable for stuff some random psycho does ...


--------------------------------
BTW - I'm not trying to argue - I'm trying to get a better understanding (of real / potential legal issues on this) - to motivate the people in the middle - out of that location and on to "our side".

One way is by getting them (the middle people) to understand, it thing are as I suspect, is to explain to them that "enties" (i.e. businesses) are NOT liable for their safety EVEN when they claim they are taking steps to "MAKE THEM SAFER" ...
... same with colleges ... since colleges have LEO's of their own ... (ref to VT shooting in OP also) etc ...
But I want facts to back up my points { and while I was hopeful for easy facts, this hope has been dashed to pieces.}

so showing them that business doing what SBucks, JitB, and now Chipotle have done in the guise of 'customer safety' is a ... pardon the phrase ... "cop out" (:biggrin ... it is done in the idea of appeasing 'both sides' - and of course their perception of 'saving their revenue' ...

I started with a broad question, perhaps all this narrows it down? ...