Posted on Oct 20, 2015
Should owner or school be liable for a mass shooting if the owner/school is not providing security or possible protective measurement?
6.62K
69
54
7
7
0
This was a question just come up and I believe is a very good question, since private properties owner even liable for intruders getting hurt in their properties.
Posted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
Physical Security
Firearms and Guns Physical Security
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 11
5
5
0
5
5
0
It has been held frequently in case law that the government (especially not the police) has no specific responsibility to protect the lives of individual citizens from the actions of other individuals. (Seemingly contrary wise to the very stated purpose of government) Ergo I doubt a court would find in favor of a lawsuit against a school.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Your thoughts?
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Your thoughts?
(5)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Capt Richard I P. I think you and I were typing at the same time.
My biggest issue with the "no obligation to protect" is when you are actually INSIDE a Government "controlled" facility or location.
I used a Courthouse in my example above, however, the Government ABSOLUTELY does have an Obligation to Protect Incarcerated Prisoners and Detainees from Harm. If I'm not mistaken there is case law that applies to that.
My biggest issue with the "no obligation to protect" is when you are actually INSIDE a Government "controlled" facility or location.
I used a Courthouse in my example above, however, the Government ABSOLUTELY does have an Obligation to Protect Incarcerated Prisoners and Detainees from Harm. If I'm not mistaken there is case law that applies to that.
(2)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Interesting information ... so this is getting more complicated :) lol
(2)
(0)
SGT William Howell
Schools (K-12) are charged with providing for the children as any reasonable parent would. If the relationship between Defendant and Plaintiff has a special relationship with the plaintiff such as parent-child, or hospital-patient, there is an affirmative duty to act on the plaintiff’s behalf. Since the school is charged as a proxy parent they are held to a much higher standard than a regular building owner.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
With SGT William Howell and Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS's points I think lawsuits asserting liability could be very interesting...
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
This is a "simple" question with VERY "complex" implications.
What we run into is the implication that the "owner" or more specifically the "controlling party" is essentially "disarming" the entrants when they enter the property, and therefore they have an Obligation to provide Safety & Security for those who enter the Premises. This would be akin to the "General Liability" which is Insured against, just like someone breaking their leg when entering the property.
However, there is of course the element of Free Will. A person generally, speaking does not have to do business with a PRIVATE entity. Therefore, that liability becomes "limited." The entrant takes a certain amount of Risk into their own hands. It's an equation, like any other Risk Management Scenario.
Now, when you get into PUBLIC "controlled" property, this becomes infinitely more complex. As an example, you cannot enter most Courthouses with a firearm. That is generally considered a "reasonable restriction." The Government also provides security at locations like these, and as such, they do have an obligation to protect the occupants from harm.
But what about Public Schools? This is farther along the "spectrum." It is "controlled" by the government, but readily accessible. Then we run into Private Schools, which are direct parallels to Public Schools. The controlling party would still have the same level of obligation, but not the same level of resources, nor the same level of Power to enforce. It changes things from Criminal to Civil.
As I said, a VERY complex answer to a very simple question.
What we run into is the implication that the "owner" or more specifically the "controlling party" is essentially "disarming" the entrants when they enter the property, and therefore they have an Obligation to provide Safety & Security for those who enter the Premises. This would be akin to the "General Liability" which is Insured against, just like someone breaking their leg when entering the property.
However, there is of course the element of Free Will. A person generally, speaking does not have to do business with a PRIVATE entity. Therefore, that liability becomes "limited." The entrant takes a certain amount of Risk into their own hands. It's an equation, like any other Risk Management Scenario.
Now, when you get into PUBLIC "controlled" property, this becomes infinitely more complex. As an example, you cannot enter most Courthouses with a firearm. That is generally considered a "reasonable restriction." The Government also provides security at locations like these, and as such, they do have an obligation to protect the occupants from harm.
But what about Public Schools? This is farther along the "spectrum." It is "controlled" by the government, but readily accessible. Then we run into Private Schools, which are direct parallels to Public Schools. The controlling party would still have the same level of obligation, but not the same level of resources, nor the same level of Power to enforce. It changes things from Criminal to Civil.
As I said, a VERY complex answer to a very simple question.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 (Join to see) That's hard to compare, because a Fire Alarm isn't a "protective device," it's a "warning device." They have functions that meet similar goals but work in different ways. Think Air Raid Sirens from WWII, which notified citizens of imminent threat. That allowed citizens to make their own defensive decisions. It didn't actually "protect" people in a true sense.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 Steven Sherrill - When I say "limited" it's about Power, as opposed to Money.
(2)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - So a business owner fail to "alert" his customer to safety is liable, but not liable for not protecting his customer? ... this kind of screw up...
Should we have some kind of building code for gun free zone? ( I got so many question ...)
Should we have some kind of building code for gun free zone? ( I got so many question ...)
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 (Join to see) Safety is ALWAYS an individual concern. However, businesses have a requirement not to be Negligent and to follow established "Code" or "Regulation." Failure to do so opens them up to Liability.
That said, there is A LOT of "grey area," and "General Liability Insurance" is just a good idea for any business owner. Now, risk of injury on a business owners property is X. The business owner wants that as low as possible. That's just good business, because it reduces Liability (lost profits from stupid things).
Now a business owner "may" view firearms as increased Liability vs. lost profits. In other words, how many shootings am I going to have at my stores? Am I going to get sued if someone dies during a shooting? How many customers am I going to lose because I don't allow firearms? It's all math, which directly relates to Profit (= Payroll to owners).
Now, a PRIVATE owner (company or person) should absolutely be allowed to make that decision. Just like a customer should absolutely be allowed to frequent a different store if they don't like that decision. As long as the policy is readily available for anyone to read, no harm, no foul.
It's when you run into PUBLIC "controlled" (or de facto monopolies) venues that we run into potential issues. There is an effective monopoly on these which prevents the Citizen from going to "the DMV next door" and limits their ability to exercise a fundamental civil liberty. When that occurs, the controlling party takes on an Obligation (in my opinion), as they are the limited Power.
This is akin to the Majority Rules, Minority Voice issue. You can't silent a Minority voice just because the Majority has power. You have to ensure their Rights are maintained.
That said, there is A LOT of "grey area," and "General Liability Insurance" is just a good idea for any business owner. Now, risk of injury on a business owners property is X. The business owner wants that as low as possible. That's just good business, because it reduces Liability (lost profits from stupid things).
Now a business owner "may" view firearms as increased Liability vs. lost profits. In other words, how many shootings am I going to have at my stores? Am I going to get sued if someone dies during a shooting? How many customers am I going to lose because I don't allow firearms? It's all math, which directly relates to Profit (= Payroll to owners).
Now, a PRIVATE owner (company or person) should absolutely be allowed to make that decision. Just like a customer should absolutely be allowed to frequent a different store if they don't like that decision. As long as the policy is readily available for anyone to read, no harm, no foul.
It's when you run into PUBLIC "controlled" (or de facto monopolies) venues that we run into potential issues. There is an effective monopoly on these which prevents the Citizen from going to "the DMV next door" and limits their ability to exercise a fundamental civil liberty. When that occurs, the controlling party takes on an Obligation (in my opinion), as they are the limited Power.
This is akin to the Majority Rules, Minority Voice issue. You can't silent a Minority voice just because the Majority has power. You have to ensure their Rights are maintained.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google