07-03-2009, 08:22 AM
|
#118 (permalink)
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Where: Franklin, TN
Posts: 373
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
I don't get it why the restaurant would be liable for allowing a state law to be in effect on their property. The state allows it by law should be their defense if needed.
....
|
Follow the money. The fear is lawsuit(s) and higher insurance premiums if the restaurant owners start filing claims with their insurance company to defend them from the lawsuits.
The some restaurant owners believe they are damned if they post due to they will be sued if someone was unable to protect themselves from a deadly encounter. They also feel damned if they do not post and the very rare, if nonexistent HCP shooting occurs or sued by patrons if a non-HCP shooting injures someone because the restaurant "allowed" guns. Even if the lawsuit get’s thrown-out, it still cost somebody money to defend the restaurant from the lawsuit.
|
|
|