Business "Responsibilty for your defense"

[djstarrider]

Ok, I have a local business that has posted. I spoke with the owner today for over an hour in a very civil conversation regarding his sign. He states that his main concern is his liability over a potential shooting in his business. I know that there is case precedent where business owners have been sued by persons that were injured while in their store due to the fact that the owner has posted the property and therefore prevented the customer from their right of self defense.

I am an insurance investigator, however this is a new topic in this state, at least to me. Please provide any case history where the owner has been sued and lost the case. What I am looking for is a case where the owner of the business lost the suit based upon the fact that they have "assumed the responsibility for the defense of their patrons due the fact that they have denied their patrons of their right of self defense". It is my assertion that a property owner, when they post the property as no weapons, "Assume the responsibility for your defense" while you are on the premesis.

If there is case history for this, please provide precedent. This business owner has a son that is a local liberal attorney, and I am sure if there is precedent, he will conveniently miss is.

The business owner has told me that if he has to legally "assume the responsibility" for the defense of his patrons, and there is case precedent for this, he will most likely remove his posting. The potential risk of a lawsuit that may cost him his business is much more important to him than my purchase of gas or soft drinks.

HELP!

[SomeGuy]

Under the law, it notes that by posting, they are not exempt from any liability.

[johnharris]

The TN Supreme Court decision in McClung allowed the issue to go to a jury on an inadequate security case several years ago as to whether a property owner was liable if they knew or should have known of the existence of criminal conduct (in general) and failed to take adequate precautions (including lighting, fencing, etc.) to protect patrons. I am not sure I have seen a case in TN at this time where the issue was specifically whether a property owner was liable for disarming patrons and then failing to provide adequate security however under the rules of evidence that could easily be a fact for the jury to consider.

[djstarrider]

[quote="SomeGuy"]Under the law, it notes that by posting, they are not exempt from any liability.[/quote]

Can you cite the TCA law or the language of the law to that effect for me please, Thanks!

[djstarrider]

[falcon1]

[mcgyver210]

I have been thinking about this scenario ever since the restaurant owners started pushing the issue to post.

[djstarrider]

Fantastic, I really appreciate the help, I would never have found that. I have printed the statute and will see that he gets it. At least he will see that it has not reduces his liability by posting. This may make a difference. I'll keep ya posted. So to speak...