________________________________
From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:41 PM
To: 'Firearms Regulation List UCLA'
Subject: RE: Negligence liability for proprietors who excludeguns
fromtheirproperty
I much appreciate Yuri's post on this, but I do want to suggest that
such language doesn't tell us that much about current law. Sure, if a
lawsuit against a proprietor who excluded guns -- or a proprietor who
allowed guns -- was unthinkable, then people wouldn't have thought about
it. But even if either lawsuit was nearly certain to be a loser,
including this sort of language might be cheap, and might get businesses
on board; after all, they don't want to get sued over this at all, even
if it seems nearly certain that they'd win.
Eugene
________________________________
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yuri R.
Linetsky
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 2:03 PM
To: Firearms Regulation List UCLA
Subject: Re: Negligence liability for proprietors who
excludeguns fromtheirproperty
In enacting Ohio's concealed carry law is 2004, the state
legislature addressed the issue of tort liability, providing immunity
from civil suits to private employers who either prohibit or allow
concealed carry by licensees on the employer's property:
Ohio Revised Code 2923.126(2)(a)--
"A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil
action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that
allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto
the premises or property of the private employer, including motor
vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer
acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from
liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or
property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private
employer's decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a
licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the
private employer. As used in this division, "private employer" includes
a private college, university, or other institution of higher
education."
The statute does not appear to be limited only to employees of
the "private employer," but applies to any CCW license holder visiting
an employer's premises. Since the statute is relatively new, I'm not
aware of any Ohio case law on the subject.
So, at least in Ohio, someone thought that there could be a
potential for tort claims against proprietors who exclude (or allow)
guns.
Yuri
Yuri R. Linetsky, Esq
Vis. Assistant Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
11075 East Boulevard
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Direct: 216.368.6855
Main: 216.368.2766
Fax: 216.368.5137
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
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.
