The question of whether proprietors who enforce no-guns rules
can be held liable for crimes against visitors, on the theory that the
rule contributed to the crime and the proprietor was negligent, is an
interesting one. But I'm pretty sure that we can't figure out the
answer the legal system currently gives (as opposed to what some think
it should give) from first principles alone. So let me ask whether
people who are actually scholars or practitioners of tort law can speak
to us about this.
There was also a suggestion that the proprietor can be held
criminally liable, presumably on the theory that his prohibition of guns
was criminally negligent; I'd be happy to hear scholars of criminal
neglience law or people who are otherwise well-acquainted with criminal
negligence law speak to that. I can say, as someone who does teach
criminal law, that it's very unlikely that a proprietor would be found
grossly negligent -- that's the usual requirement for criminal
negligence -- for excluding guns, given that reasonable can and do
differ whether such exclusions are wise or not. But in any case, I'd
love to hear what others who know more than I do about the subject about
it.
But let me stress again that figuring out what's likely to
happen under modern tort or criminal law is something that requires some
detailed knowledge of specific modern rules on the subject, and not just
speculation about how things ought to be.
Eugene
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
