here's a question i had concerning "no guns" signs.
i was reading on another forum that some states (i think it was ohio in this case) grant employers immunity from lawsuits regarding the use of firearms by CCs, as well as immunity from lawsuits stemming from injuries sustained by employees and customers that are related to the company's "no guns allowed" policies. does indiana have anything like this?
an example would be:
Company A has 3 stores located in City B. 2 of these stores are the targets of armed robberies within a few weeks. Company A has a "no carry" policy in place for its employees. A clerk at the third store, which is located in the most crime-ridden section of City B, asks upper management about employees carrying firearms and/or "non-lethal" protection such as mace. Management says no way. The clerk then asks what is being done to increase security. Management says they are concerned, but ultimately changes nothing.
if store 3 is robbed and the clerk is shot, stabbed, etc, is Company A shielded from lawsuits from the clerk or his family? does the clerk assume his own liability as a condition of being a clerk? or is Company A negligent because there was a clear precendent of Company A's stores being robbed and they did nothing?
i was reading on another forum that some states (i think it was ohio in this case) grant employers immunity from lawsuits regarding the use of firearms by CCs, as well as immunity from lawsuits stemming from injuries sustained by employees and customers that are related to the company's "no guns allowed" policies. does indiana have anything like this?
an example would be:
Company A has 3 stores located in City B. 2 of these stores are the targets of armed robberies within a few weeks. Company A has a "no carry" policy in place for its employees. A clerk at the third store, which is located in the most crime-ridden section of City B, asks upper management about employees carrying firearms and/or "non-lethal" protection such as mace. Management says no way. The clerk then asks what is being done to increase security. Management says they are concerned, but ultimately changes nothing.
if store 3 is robbed and the clerk is shot, stabbed, etc, is Company A shielded from lawsuits from the clerk or his family? does the clerk assume his own liability as a condition of being a clerk? or is Company A negligent because there was a clear precendent of Company A's stores being robbed and they did nothing?