I don't teach either torts or criminal law. With that intro, I've always thought that one thing distinguishes this case from the usual negligence case. Usually negligence results from a failure to act. We then go looking for whether the person had a "duty" to act which he owed to the injured person. In the posted property situation, the landlord has affirmatively acted to prevent the injured party from exercising a right of effective self-protection that he would otherwise have. That is, the landlord has not only not protected the patron (failed to act) but the landlord has blocked the patron (by affirmatively substituting his choice for that of the patron) from protecting himself. The landlord has created a risk -- of an attack WITHOUT personal protection -- that did not exist before. The landlord has negated the permit holder's judgement as to the need and means of protection without supplying an effective alternative. For that DELIBERATE ACT, shouldn't liability follow? ************************************************** Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037) f- 651-523-2236 St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956 [email protected]
>>> "Volokh, Eugene" <[email protected]> 02/08/09 5:19 PM >>> 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
