That's it exactly. They are PREVENTING you from protecting yourself. The state has (1) authorized you to protect yourself, (2) authorized you to carry the tool you have chosen to protect yourself, (3) you are ready, willing and able to do so BUT FOR the affirmative interference of the landlord. He chose to ACT, now he is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of that action. This is much MORE than a negligent failure to act.
>>> <[email protected]> 02/08/09 7:57 PM >>> 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 >fromtheirproperty > >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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
