Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Regardless of whether you "buy it" or not. Its the reality. And it matters little whether or not someone has been sued for failing to ban CCW on their premises (because there are large numbers of analogous lawsuits ) but what someone's insurance company requires.Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Sayonara
How does someone file/win a lawsuit against a business who follows state law (CCW)?
Not buying it.
The sign means nothing. Unless there is a metal detector or physical search of some sorts the, sign means nothing to a citizen obeying the laws and carrying a firearm concealed.
I'm still looking for a Colorado liability statement, but here's one from Wisconsin:
http://wolfriverccw.com/?page_id=195
Businesses that do NOT post can’t be held liable for incidents that happen with permit holders. Click here to read it for yourself or read below.
Civil Liability
Wisconsin’s concealed carry law does not exempt individual license holders from civil liability for their actions. You could be sued and found liable for property damage, injury, or deaths caused by your actions.
The only liability protection provided by Wisconsin statute is for the following actors: (footnote 29)
• A person who does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from his or her decision.
• An employer who does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon is immune from any liability arising from that decision.
• A person providing a firearms training course in good faith is immune from liability from any act or omission related to the course if the course is one of the courses listed in statute.
Wis. Stat. § 895.62 also affects liability in certain situations, and is shown in Appendix F.
However, even with these statutory provisions, there may be circumstances where the actors described may be exposed to liability. A discussion of such situations is beyond the scope of this course.
29 Wis. Stat. § 175.60(21)(b)-(d).
There are two reasons why no business or person should post such signs at their restaurant, bar or workplace, including such places as a hospital:
1. When someone sees the “no guns” or “no weapons” sign, there is a reasonable expectation of safety (if you make the absurd assumption that anyone obeys this sign, including crazed killers or those criminals intent on homicide, robbery, etc.) A person bringing his or her family to a restaurant with such a sign could argue that they assumed they would be safe. If a crime then occurs that leaves that person or a member of his family injured or killed, clearly there is no state statute protecting the business from being sued. But if the business does NOT post this sign, there is a state statute protecting the business from a lawsuit.
2. When a person carrying concealed sees such a sign and then returns to his car to leave his handgun behind because of that sign, if this person (or someone else who might be protected by this person) is then injured or killed, clearly he or she has the right to sue, arguing that the sign forced him or her to return his handgun to the car to comply with the sign and the law, thereby leaving him unprotected and vulnerable to attack. State statute would support his lawsuit as shown above.
The Tavern League of Wisconsin has advised its members of this same liability to posting bars and restaurants with “no guns” signs. Click here for the link.
It would likely hurt you, but I'll have to Address from home when I can dig around and look for proper terms. In the mean time, it doesn't matter if anyone has been sued or not before, and that would in no way be a defense.
"There are no finger prints under water."
It's called precedent... if it hasn't been successful in the past, there would have to be something significantly different for it to be successful in the future.
I don't know of any attempts off the top of my head, but I'm no lawyer, either.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, we are the III%, CIP2, and some other catchphrase meant to aggravate progreSSives who are hell bent on taking rights away...
He said no one has been sued, didn't mention of they were successful or not. If a lawsuit is lost and a court decision made based on that, that's one thing. If it just hasn't happened before, that's different.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Name for me one insurance company that requires "No CCW" signs/policies in order to insure a business against liability?
I remember when Kansas passed their CCW law soon after I moved here and I kept abreast of the goings on there via the KS CCW forum. In Kansas a business can post No CCW and if they use the proper state approved sign, it carries legal weight. Several landlords at strip malls started going around to their tenants claiming that "the insurance company says you have to post no CCW" and every case was a lie told by an anti-gun libtard landlord.
Again, there's people that will tell you that they must post for liability reasons but those reasons are a lie to justify political bigotry.
[George Zimmer]I guarantee it.[/George Zimmer]
Last edited by Zundfolge; 04-04-2014 at 21:27.
Modern liberalism is based on the idea that reality is obligated to conform to one's beliefs because; "I have the right to believe whatever I want".
"Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people."
-Penn Jillette
A World Without Guns <- Great Read!
I don't know of any companies that require signs posted, but that is not the sector of insurance in which I work. Even if the underwriter offers a discount on rates for signage, or if a loss control person suggests signs, people will still say "required by insurance."
I am just as eager as you, Zund, to believe that the world is full of freedom hating assholes. However, after you sit through a few liability round tables, you'll see that the discussion usually completely transcends politics or political leanings, as simple opinion and perceptions of people have literally no room within the conversation. It's all about classes of involved parties, specific locations of events, reasonable expectations of property owners, which risks/threats were known, which risks/threats should have been known about, legal requirements, etc.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Lets get this back on track. Any word on the proceedings?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote