Might be an interesting distinction, along the lines of (from Torts 101, 30 years ago)--
If you see a drowning person, and decide it's more interesting to answer your voicemail, there is no liability. If you deter someone else from responding -- "Don't worry, he's just pulling a prank" -- there is liability. -----Original Message----- >From: "Joseph E. Olson" <[email protected]> >Sent: Feb 8, 2009 6:49 PM >To: Eugene Volokh <[email protected]>, Firearms Regulation List UCLA ><[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Negligence liability for proprietors who exclude guns from >theirproperty > >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.
