Originally Posted by midtennchip

I think the case you are looking for is McClung v. Delta Square, et al. Dorothy McClung was abducted at gunpoint in the parking lot of Wal-Mart in Delta Square. The TN Supreme Court ruled that the incident was reasonably foreseeable and that Wal-Mart (and the real estate partnership that owned Delta Square) had a duty to protect Mrs. McClung. The case is available here:

Roger L. Mcclung, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., Defendant-appellee - 270 F.3d 1007 - Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions


With that in mind, I do believe, under certain circumstances, that an establishment that posts the no guns sign could be held liable for crime on its premises. But, just the fact that it posted would not be enough. It might be a factor, but the criminal act itself would have to be reasonably foreseeable. In McClung, the court noted the extreme number of crimes that occurred in the parking lot or adjacent to it in the 17 months leading up to the crime. Wal-Mart provided no security. As a result, Wal-Mart breached its duty to Mrs. McClung.

If a restaurant in a high crime area posts the notice, it may very well be setting itself up for a premises liability claim. But, it will take more than just the sign to get to that result. Someone walking into the establishment does not just assume the risk. Just because the establishment can reasonably foresee the problem doesn't mean the patron knows (and therefore has assumed) that risk. Lots of factors.