Shooting victims' estate files wrongful death suit against supermarket

[Bill B]

Sorry if this is a dupe or in the wrong place
Estate of victim in Martin's Super Market shooting sues grocery chain - South Bend Tribune: Public Safety

From the article:

"The bottom line, I think, is that in this day and age, unfortunately, we know these (shootings) happen, we know there are many of them every single year, so I think at 10 o'clock at night, if you're going to keep your store open, there's clearly a duty under the law to protect your customers," Benjamin Fryman, an attorney for Godfread's estate, told the South Bend Tribune

Thoughts?
In my mind one unarmed guard is not enough to protect customers or employees.

 

[srad]

"The bottom line, I think, is that in this day and age, unfortunately, we know these (shootings) happen, we know there are many of them every single year, so I think at 10 o'clock at night, if you're going to go shopping, there's clearly a duty to protect yourself as granted by the Constitution"

There you go... FIFY; seriously hope that the court will not hear the case and quickly put this to bed as frivilous. A retail establishment has no duty to protect it's customers from something like an active shooter scenario.

 

[Bigtanker]

This was a personal matter that turned deadly. The perp was targeting the girl. Cops were there in 2 minutes I think.

 

[GIJEW]

Unless the supermarket had a GFZ policy I don't think there isn't any basis for this suit. Does the plaintiff expect them to guard customers in the parking lot and everywhere in the store, all at the same time?

 

[SSGSAD]

Sorry if this is a dupe or in the wrong place
Estate of victim in Martin's Super Market shooting sues grocery chain - South Bend Tribune: Public Safety

From the article:


Thoughts?
In my mind one unarmed guard is not enough to protect customers or employees.

JMHO, UN armed Security, is NOT !!!!!

 

[voidsherpa]

Unless the supermarket had a GFZ policy I don't think there isn't any basis for this suit.

So that'd make the frivolous lawsuit okay in your eyes?

 

[Kurr]

If LEO do not have a duty to protect I don't see how they can hold a grocer to that standard.

 

[Joniki]

If LEO do not have a duty to protect I don't see how they can hold a grocer to that standard.

 

[Cameramonkey]

JMHO, UN armed Security, is NOT !!!!!

No. Its a babysitter.

 

[ajeandy]

If LEO do not have a duty to protect I don't see how they can hold a grocer to that standard.

No kidding.

 

[DRob]

"I'm not a security guard. I'm a security monitor. I notify people if there's a robbery. There's a robbery".

 

[yepthatsme]

A lawsuit of this nature could set a ridiculous precedent for private businesses. This could easily spiral out of control. What I think is worse, is that there are some businesses willing to settle out of court just because they think it is cheaper to do so. This practice just encourages more lawsuits.

 

[GIJEW]

So that'd make the frivolous lawsuit okay in your eyes?

I guess you think that if the market did have a GFZ policy where they tried to force people to be defenseless, then there still wouldn't be ANY basis for the suit? Note, that in my 1st post I was calling the lawsuit frivilous

 

[87iroc]

I don't know in this case...but I've wondered if an employer dictates 'no weapons in building' and you get hurt/murdered due to this policy...if that's a lawsuit that my family could file after my demise. Anyway, just something I've been wondering.

 

[voidsherpa]

I guess you think that if the market did have a GFZ policy where they tried to force people to be defenseless...

I fail to see how they are forcing people to be defenseless? Not mandatory to patronize a GFZ grocery.

 

[GIJEW]

I fail to see how they are forcing people to be defenseless? Not mandatory to patronize a GFZ grocery.

Understood, and if the GFZ sign was in a place where it had the force of law, I definitely wouldn't go near it. My point was that establishing a GFZ policy might present a basis for a lawsuit in that it's arguably a contributing factor in that place being robbed/attacked. Anyway, I already said that we're in agreement that THIS case is without merit.

 

[richardraw316]

So that'd make the frivolous lawsuit okay in your eyes?

Yes, yes it would.

 

[Bill B]

Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents

I believe that, unlike IN, signs have force of law in TN.

 

[cosermann]

If an institution sets a gun free policy, then I think they should provide compensating security measures.
I would LOVE to see these decided as such as it would reduce some of the "no guns" policy silliness.
If there was no "no guns" policy, then it's a frivolous lawsuit, and it was the customer's responsibility to protect herself.

 

[Alamo]

I don't know in this case...but I've wondered if an employer dictates 'no weapons in building' and you get hurt/murdered due to this policy...if that's a lawsuit that my family could file after my demise. Anyway, just something I've been wondering.

In Utah, the state Supreme Court did recently rule in RAY v WALMART that

We conclude that the policy favoring the right of self-defense is a public policy of sufficient clarity and weight to qualify as an exception to the at-will employment doctrine. But we limit the exception to situations where an employee reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of serious bodily harm and the employee has no opportunity to withdraw.

This does not directly address your question about employee prohibitions on carrying weapons, but it is close, and an interesting result.

It would be unwise to conclude this is the result you would get in any other case or state, but it is interesting in that at least one state Supreme Court has concluded that the right of self-defense can be a public policy so important as to outweigh employer's policies against it even in an at-will employment arena.

ETA: Forgot to include a link. I don't know where the original is on the interwebz but I wrote about it and included a Scribd copy of the ruling here: UT: Can't fire employees for defending selves - TexasCHLforum.com