restaurants that post...

If a restaurant posts its property as to prohibit firearms per Tennessee Code..


Is that same restaurant then legally responsible for the safety of its patrons? Meaning--if any of the patrons are injured by a criminal who comes into the building--can the restaurant be held financially responsible for any injuries received?

I'm seeing stories about restaurants beginning to post---if they do, they should have to be financially liable for any injuries received while a person is on their property.

Originally Posted by justme

If a restaurant posts its property as to prohibit firearms per Tennessee Code..


Is that same restaurant then legally responsible for the safety of its patrons? Meaning--if any of the patrons are injured by a criminal who comes into the building--can the restaurant be held financially responsible for any injuries received? Nope.

I'm seeing stories about restaurants beginning to post---if they do, they should have to be financially liable for any injuries received while a person is on their property. Been discussed before, not likely to happen.

.

Bkelm18 is right. There is likely no liability for the restaurant whether there is a sign posted or not. Of course a restaurant owner could be hauled into court and have to spend dollars on legal fees.

Originally Posted by rabidrhino

Bkelm18 is right. There is likely no liability for the restaurant whether there is a sign posted or not. Of course a restaurant owner could be hauled into court and have to spend dollars on legal fees.

Yes, but if you did not win the case--you would have to pay their reasonable attorney fees as well as court costs...

Wasn't there a case where WalMart was sued due to lack of security in their parking lots and the citizen won?

Originally Posted by dunndw

Wasn't there a case where WalMart was sued due to lack of security in their parking lots and the citizen won?

IIRC, there are certain things that businesses have to do in regards to the security/safety of the their patrons, allowing HCPs is not one of them.

Originally Posted by bkelm18

IIRC, there are certain things that businesses have to do in regards to the security/safety of the their patrons, allowing HCPs is not one of them.

and it would seem to me--again using common sense here, that if business owners intentionally and willfully disarm the people who come into their business--if they then fail to take adequate measures to provide for the peoples safety--"security guard", or so on--then it would seem to me that the business would be liable.

Seems to me that the restaurants I've heard about posting are concerned about liability.

So, if one was an HCP holder and could not defend oneself if the hit the fan, would they be liable then?

Originally Posted by dunndw

Wasn't there a case where WalMart was sued due to lack of security in their parking lots and the citizen won?

Originally Posted by bkelm18

IIRC, there are certain things that businesses have to do in regards to the security/safety of the their patrons, allowing HCPs is not one of them.

Also the main reason the citizen won the suit was, there had been other incidents in the parking lot or at least close. So the court said it "was a known danger" and they didn't nothing to correct the problem and/or protect their customers.

You can see the ruling here

But a place has no duty to protect you against the "general problems" of society.

So...if patrons of a place had been mugged 3-4 times and the owner did nothing to correct the problem or protect you and something happened you'd have a pretty good case, but in general....No.

Originally Posted by Garufa

Seems to me that the restaurants I've heard about posting are concerned about liability.

So, if one was an HCP holder and could not defend oneself if the hit the fan, would they be liable then?

I think it would come down to the fact that you can choose to enter or not. Also it has been ruled that law enforcement can’t he held liable for your protection, so I doubt a business would be.

I would guess that there have been people that have lost family members in places where guns are banned that have tried to file suit. But since those are civil cases and not criminal they may be hard for us to find.

IMHO the biggest single issue we should be addressing (concerning where we can carry) is totally removing any liability that a business owner would have in the case of a shooting, simply because it was in their building.