Liability of posted Businesses

[Tim Nunan]

With the no gun posting of the KFC's in western Tennessee I'm curious as to the libility they incur by precluding carry permittees (yes I hate that phrase) access. Is there precidence for suing a business, and winning, that "assumes" our safety by posting their property? Are they in fact liable for our safety?

Just one successful law suit holding them accountable should greatly enhance the case for being legally armed.

[Ed__357]

I am not a lawyer and certainly don't mean to be giving advice, only opinion. First of all, nobody is going to drag you off the street into a KFC restaurant and force you to sit there and eat chicken. If you enter a restaurant with a "NO GUNS" sign posted on the door, you do so willingly and knowing full well. If you're worried about your safety, do not go in there to begin with. Find a restaurant that does not have such signs. If you do choose to enter the store and eat, and the store is robbed while you are in there and you incur an injury in the process, why is that the fault of KFC? You CHOSE to walk in even though it is posted. That is the whole reason that some establishments put the signs up. It's to tell you and I that they do not want guns in their buildings. They have the right to do that, and you and I have the right to go elsewhere. I personally will not do business in ANY establishment that puts up such signs. Fortuneately in my location, they are scarce and I go pretty much anywhere I desire. But I'll certainly not enter a posted business, and then whine about doing so.

[dwaldrip]

Take a look at the last 3 posts of this thread



and follow the link in one of them to the TFA website and read the McClung opinion.

Also, look at what the posting letter generated off of the TFA website says at this link about the Memphis KFC's.



In addition, let's see what John Harris has to say about it, once he sees this thread.

--David

[johnharris]

David is correct, one of the leading opinions in this area from our courts is the McClung case (often referred to as the WalMart decision). Here are some aspects to consider:

1. Premises liability / inadequate security cases are recognized in Tennessee. The general rule has been that the property owner is not a guarantor againse criminal offense with the thought being that criminal conduct is an "intervening" cause and one that may be too difficult to anticipate in each instances. E.g., do we expect property owners to protect us from violent weather?

2. The standard for inadequate security cases is the "reasonable man" standard of negligence. In these cases the issues are what did the property owner know concerning the general level of crime in the area and were the security measures reasonable when viewed in light of that knowledge.

3. What level of security (sliding scale) was provided? Thus, it might be that no security was reasonable if the area is "pristine." It may be, however, that security lights, fences etc. were adequate if the area only has occassional and minor property thefts. If the property is known for violence, armed or unarmed security may be necessary but on the other hand why are you there?

4. Was the property posted to prohibit firearms and, if so, why?

5. If the property was posted, did you "assume the risk" of going into an area unarmed? E.g., did you have an option. You may not have an option if the location is a courtroom but you probably do if its KFC.