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?
7.46K
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 >1 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)
3
3
0
I have been trying to do legal research on this for a few months. Now that I am playing Billy Madison and am back in a state school, my head is stuck on a swivel because of how the media has glorified mass and school shootings. Although there is no legal ramifications for CCW in WI colleges, it is still prohibited by the campus'.
From my reading, the court has previously ruled that an establishment has not legal requirement to ensure customer/ student safety.
However, the ability to protect oneself hinges on being able to use the same level if not more force than the aggressor is using. Many CCW patrons ignore privately posted signs. What needs to happen is to abolish "safe zones" as these are the vast majority of places affected.
From my reading, the court has previously ruled that an establishment has not legal requirement to ensure customer/ student safety.
However, the ability to protect oneself hinges on being able to use the same level if not more force than the aggressor is using. Many CCW patrons ignore privately posted signs. What needs to happen is to abolish "safe zones" as these are the vast majority of places affected.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT William Howell The school has not denied your right the State has, that lawsuit won't get off the ground. If you attempt to CC you'll be thrown in jail. There will continue to be significant school and gun free zone shootings until the laws are loosened.
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
MAJ (Join to see) The law in Texas says you can carry in a school if they allow it. The burden has moved from the government to the school and it is their denial that would lead to them having to protect you, because you can't do it yourself. Their actions have made you less safe therefor they must provide at least as much security as you could have provided yourself.
(1)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SGT Josheua Cooke Laws and interpretation of the law come from two places. Common law...what has been accepted throughout the years and case law what the past cases have decided and how it will pertain to your case. You can ask for an opinion on a subject from a judge, but it by no means binding.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I hope to see more states and districts following Texas's example. I for one certainly believe I am more capable to conceal carry than several of my cop friends (who can't shoot anyway) certainly better than a minimum wage security service.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
If I am having my personal ability to defend myself restricted, then the restricting entity takes responsibility for it. If I have to leave my weapons to attend a school function, the school takes responsibility for my safety.
I think it is ridiculous that an intruder being injured on my property can hold me liable for their safety. I did not invite that individual to my home, they forced their way in. This is a part of the problem with the litigious nature of our society. This is one instance where more law is something I am in favor of. I think that we should have laws protecting home owners from assholes that commit a crime against them on their property. What difference does it make either an intruder steals my stuff, or I have to sell it off to pay the intruder when they sue? The solution is to just kill the bastard, bury them at sea, and never report the crime. Not a good way to be feeling in the "Land of the Free"
I think it is ridiculous that an intruder being injured on my property can hold me liable for their safety. I did not invite that individual to my home, they forced their way in. This is a part of the problem with the litigious nature of our society. This is one instance where more law is something I am in favor of. I think that we should have laws protecting home owners from assholes that commit a crime against them on their property. What difference does it make either an intruder steals my stuff, or I have to sell it off to pay the intruder when they sue? The solution is to just kill the bastard, bury them at sea, and never report the crime. Not a good way to be feeling in the "Land of the Free"
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
MAJ (Join to see)
If a gun store knowingly sells to a felon, they are guilty, if a school chooses not to fix broken fire detection equipment after sufficient time, they are liable, because they broke a law that compounded an issue creating further harm. There is no law that a theater guard it's doors, no law requiring schools to fund private security. As such they are not breaking any laws, there is not an inherent law requiring property owners from preventing harm on their property. To do so would remove any responsibility of the individual and completely destroy all commerce in the country.
(1)
(0)
SGT Josheua Cooke
MAJ (Join to see) - Citing a school does not work because we constitutionally have the right to defend ourselves. With that said if teachers and faculty do not have the ability to exert similar or greater force than an attacker would, due to policy and legal penalty, then it stands to reason that the school would provide "adequate" security for such events.
Between people of questionable deductive reasoning demanding "gun free zones" and the glorification of mass shootings by the media precautions need to be taken. I feel as though citizens of the United States have adopted an Ostrich syndrome to the real threats in the world. A lot of people have a "it won't happen here", "some one else will hand it" attitude that invites further tragedies.
With domestic terrorism finally starting to gain attention after several decades in the U.S. we remain reactionary instead of adopting a precautionary stance one all matters. In the future, I would not be surprised if we had the same types of threads that Europe does as far as terrorist activities.
Between people of questionable deductive reasoning demanding "gun free zones" and the glorification of mass shootings by the media precautions need to be taken. I feel as though citizens of the United States have adopted an Ostrich syndrome to the real threats in the world. A lot of people have a "it won't happen here", "some one else will hand it" attitude that invites further tragedies.
With domestic terrorism finally starting to gain attention after several decades in the U.S. we remain reactionary instead of adopting a precautionary stance one all matters. In the future, I would not be surprised if we had the same types of threads that Europe does as far as terrorist activities.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Right now the laws state schools are gun free zones, in most states and districts if a school armed its teachers the school would be liable for any actions that teacher took in execution of their duties. One of the prevalent cases is about a school who had students who would trespass into the school to play basketball, one of the students died when he fell adjusting the lighting so they could play. Months later at the same location another student fell through a skylight that was painted black and they sued the school. The school district settled because they knew there was a problem and didn't take any steps to stop the trespassing or remove the safety risks. A significantly different story than the mass media reported. The school's requirement is to follow the laws and policies of the state, they are not required to provide security to their students, other than call the police as something happens. And the state exercises sovereignty meaning you can't sue the police just because they were too far away. Self defense needs to be allowed.
Sadly we have lost the right to defend ourselves in gun free zones aka "no defense zones"
Sadly we have lost the right to defend ourselves in gun free zones aka "no defense zones"
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - Good, maybe we can just change the "Gun free zone" to "No defense zone" will actually wake people up.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
PO3 (Join to see)
I would have to say yes, especially since schools try to cover their asses by declaring themselves a "Gun Free Zone."
I would have to say yes, especially since schools try to cover their asses by declaring themselves a "Gun Free Zone."
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
No. The owner cannot afford in most cases to prepare for every single scenario that could come his/her way. If they implement best practices and do their due diligence they've met the threshold of reasonable safety and shouldn't be help responsible.
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
I am playing the liberal's game here:
who define "due diligence to met the threshold of reasonable safety", anwser is government. :) lol This is a taste of their own tactic. lol
who define "due diligence to met the threshold of reasonable safety", anwser is government. :) lol This is a taste of their own tactic. lol
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
PO3 (Join to see) - Maybe, but this would be one extremely dangerous game of words. But I see what you mean tho.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
PO3 (Join to see)
lol, engineer sometime have more answer to many issue than a lawyer. lol
I am an engineer too.
I am an engineer too.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Thomas Carney
PO3 (Join to see) - I'm not sure about that. Less than 100 years ago law pertained to who could blackmail or pay off a judge or judges to rule on law. I don't think law ever did pertain to common sense. After all, Hammurabi's Code has been around for at least 2500 years.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google