A good thing from the Restaurant carry lawsuit?

While I have nothing to really base this on...I am still truly hoping the lawsuit is eventually dismissed.

However, I wonder if some good could come from it all.

It seems one of the reason restaurant owners are against the law is because of what they see as the possible liability on their part for the actions of a HCP holder on their property.

Maybe this discussion can open the door for new liability and/or non-liability legislation to be introduced next year.

Again...no hard facts to base this on, but I figured that one of the main reasons a business may post against carry is the liability (real or perceived) on their part for the actions of a HCP holder on their property.

...and let's be honest, if someone injured in a shooting does sue, the property owner will probably be named since they are the "deep pockets".

So a law that specifically said the property owner is not liable for the independent actions or results of the actions of a HCP holder on their property would give them some ease and for sure one less reason to post.

But...on the flip side, if the above is done and the place still chooses to post against carry, I would like to see a HCP holder specifically be able to seek damages if something occurs in a place.

What I want to know is if the suit is successfull can we turn around and counter sue under "equal protection under the law" as the law allows LEOs to carry into these same places.

Originally Posted by redbarron06

What I want to know is if the suit is successfull can we turn around and counter sue under "equal protection under the law" as the law allows LEOs to carry into these same places.

Not sure...and that may be a better question for the current thread on the lawsuit. Challenge "Guns-in-bars" Law: Nashville attorneys David Randolph Smith & Adam Dread

I agree, I think some good things could come out of this as long as the judge uses good wisdom and logic on July 13. If we prevail, it will strenghten our position.

I think they are overplaying the liability issue. I know anyone can be sued for just about anything, but i am still trying to wrap my brain around how they could actually be held liable for complying with state law. If an injury occurs, seems like they could just say "State law allows HCP holders in my restaurant".

I see it similar to someone injuring me with their car in the parking lot. The state allows that person to have a driver's license and drive. I wonder why the restaurant doesn't post "No Cars" signs (well, I know the answer - $$$). After all, that is a very real and possible injury scenario campared to the HCP/gun issue. Unless it related to the design of the parking lot/signage/cross walk/etc., I don't see how the property owner could be held liable for the actions of the driver.

If they're worried about libility...then why can't they be sued every time someone gets robbed for not providing a safe working enviroment?

Originally Posted by Fallguy

While I have nothing to really base this on...I am still truly hoping the lawsuit is eventually dismissed.

However, I wonder if some good could come from it all.

It seems one of the reason restaurant owners are against the law is because of what they see as the possible liability on their part for the actions of a HCP holder on their property.

Maybe this discussion can open the door for new liability and/or non-liability legislation to be introduced next year.

Again...no hard facts to base this on, but I figured that one of the main reasons a business may post against carry is the liability (real or perceived) on their part for the actions of a HCP holder on their property.

...and let's be honest, if someone injured in a shooting does sue, the property owner will probably be named since they are the "deep pockets".

So a law that specifically said the property owner is not liable for the independent actions or results of the actions of a HCP holder on their property would give them some ease and for sure one less reason to post.

But...on the flip side, if the above is done and the place still chooses to post against carry, I would like to see a HCP holder specifically be able to seek damages if something occurs in a place.

The "liability" issue has been brought up many times and the consensus seemed to be that the establishment couldn't be held accountable for an unpredicable/unexpected/etc. act.

If that is so why would the establishment be liable by allowing HC permittees there?

I've always thought that the Tennessee Restaurant Association and the restaurant owners liked hiding behind the law rather than having to make the decision to allow legal carry or not. Having to make the decision as the law now requires means the customer can also decide whether or not to spend money there and this is the crux of their problem... it is all about money.

Originally Posted by Tim Nunan

The "liability" issue has been brought up many times and the consensus seemed to be that the establishment couldn't be held accountable for an unpredicable/unexpected/etc. act.

If that is so why would the establishment be liable by allowing HC permittees there?

I agree that I don't think property owners are really liable now.

However a law that specifically said that may be helpful I think and clear up any uncertainty.

Originally Posted by Fallguy

I agree that I don't think property owners are really liable now.

However a law that specifically said that may be helpful I think and clear up any uncertainty.

I hope you don't think that would stop the opposition? They'll just roll out the rest of their litany of lies.

These nutjobs are just grabbing at any handy straws to try and stop us. Today it's liability. Tomorrow it'll be "for the children". They're running purely on emotion, not facts or logic.

btw, I'm against any legislation relieving these ****ers from any liability.

Originally Posted by HexHead

I hope you don't think that would stop the opposition? They'll just roll out the rest of their litany of lies.

These nutjobs are just grabbing at any handy straws to try and stop us. Today it's liability. Tomorrow it'll be "for the children". They're running purely on emotion, not facts or logic.

btw, I'm against any legislation relieving these ****ers from any liability.

No, I don't think it will stop the lawsuit....and that's not what I am really talking about with all of this.

I just think this situation could help change the law on liability, which would be a good thing overall I believe.

....and why are you against a law that would relieve a property owner (not just restaurants) of liability because you shot at a bad guy and maybe hit an innocent bystander? Is it really the property owner's fault the innocent got hit just because the allowed you to carry in there?

Granted I don't think they property owner is liable as it is now, but that doesn't stop them from being in the lawsuit...and as it stands now, they have no specific protection under any statute.

However as I said, the flip side is, if it is clear the property owner has no liability for your actions and he still chooses to post, then yes, I think he should be liable if something happens to you and you may have otherwise been able to prevent it had he not caused you to disarm.