liability of businesses who allow carry?

[Kingrat]

i tried searching and didnt come up with any pre-existing threads, so heres my question

are there any liabilities or issues with insurance for businesses who allow their employees to carry?
what if the business is in rented/leased space?
what if something happened where someone was forced to use deadly force while on the clock at a business, could the business/property owner be dragged into a civil suit as well as the LTCH holder?
would it matter if the business declared them as some type of security guard?
would there be any liability to the business if it happened while outside of the place of business while working?

just thought i would ask here since i dont really have any lawyers i could talk too without spending $$$
i dont expect that there would be any liability except to the LTCH holder themselves, but im not a lawyer

 

[jeremy]

Very good question. I am interested in the answers as well.

 

[bigg cheese]

McDonald's certainly doesn't think so.

McDonald's Won't Pay Hospital Bills of Hero Employee - US News Briefs | Newser

 

[millsusaf]

In this day and age anyone and everyone that could possibly be sued would be. It's sad but it happens almost every day it seems.

 

[gunbunnies]

I would think a (good) "meaning bad lawyer" could get all involved by todays standards.... Now the other side of the coin is how do LTCH holders sue everyone involved when they are required to leave thier firearm at home to go across state lines, or enter a store that doesn't allow carry and are robbed, or hurt/murdered while on that property... heck you could even look into how to hold the state, city, and county of a non carry friendly area responsible for you as you have been forced to not exercise your right to carry by legal force...

I figured this was a alternate look at your same question, hope it doesn't appear to be a post jack....

 

[citizenvain]

There was a story this week about the cook from the ship that was hijacked by the pirates suing the company because the company doesn't provide protection or allow the crew to carry firearms to protect themselves.

Its sad that someone exercising their freedom can be sued, and shunned, and discriminated against. But if something bad happend in an establishment that was a "gun free" zone, I would think the sueing could go the other way where you could sue the establishment for not allowing you to carry? I would.

 

[Sureshot129]

I know from security work that banks hire private security b/c of the liabilty insurance that they would have to have for a service like that the company I work for has bank accounts that pay $1,200 a month to have a marked security car out front in addition to having an unarmed security guard inside. So I think that yes as far as calling them "security guards" anything else I don't know.

 

[Kingrat]

im not really asking about dedicated security guards, just normal employees who happen to carry a gun

 

[Sailor]

You can get dragged into a lawsuit regardless of liability. It does not matter if they are on site or off. If something happens and they are working, the business is involved.

What about employees who happen to exercise their const. right to free speech?

 

[youngda9]

I believe this is the reason for most of the positions a company takes in their employee manual. It is recommended by their attourney as the safest(less liable in most cases) route for all policies(guns or otherwise).

We are a very litigious society, unfortunately...common sense has left the building.

 

[redneckmedic]

I thinks it is absolutly better if employee carry...if something does happen then its another entitiy for the "victem" to sue and get there money from. Takes a little pressure off the law abiding citizen who used appropirate self defense.

 

[Biggdogg]

i tried searching and didnt come up with any pre-existing threads, so heres my question

are there any liabilities or issues with insurance for businesses who allow their employees to carry?
what if the business is in rented/leased space?
what if something happened where someone was forced to use deadly force while on the clock at a business, could the business/property owner be dragged into a civil suit as well as the LTCH holder?
would it matter if the business declared them as some type of security guard?
would there be any liability to the business if it happened while outside of the place of business while working?

just thought i would ask here since i dont really have any lawyers i could talk too without spending $$$
i dont expect that there would be any liability except to the LTCH holder themselves, but im not a lawyer

The answer to ALL those questions (like others have already said) is YES. If only for the fact that it seems that legal procedure and things lihe that aer not looked at as guidelines anymore, but most often as "suggestions". Our society (in general) is will sue anyone for anything at the drop of a hat these days. Coupled with the fact that there aer ALWAYS "ambulance chasers" who will take on almost any case to get a big payday, it really doesn't matter if you follow "the letter of the law"...if something bad happens, you can expect that either you, the business, or proably BOTH, will be sued in these cases.

 

[greyhound47]

I seem to remember hearing about a KFC employee who sued KFC because he was not allowed to carry his gun at work. One night a robbery occurred and the man was brutally beaten along with some other workers. KFC lost the suit because the man showed he was made defenseless by the company policy. Pertaining to the original post, couldn't this work in reverse?

 

[00BlasterResto]

I remember like 2 or3 years ago a lil video game store thing here in Osceola was getting robbed and the guy working shot the armed robber, Seemed like they patted him on the back rather than slay him as I just kinda feel like they would want to do to people.