Hypothetical Lawsuit question. Interesting…?

[DozerC6]

I work in management of a company that, like most, has been going through a difficult time over the last 1.5 – 2 years and we have had a number of significant workforce reductions during that time. We have all seen the stories about people flipping out after being laid off and coming back to the office with a gun and killing multiple people. This got me thinking about what if it happened to me. What if one of the people I’ve had to notify over the years decided to bring their gun back to work to get revenge? What could / would I do?

Well my company has a no firearm policy. Firearms are not allowed in any building or even in the parking lot. Outside of work, I carry most of the time. The only exception is when I’m wearing my sweatpants getting ready for bed(I can’t keep them up with it on). My wife often jokes about hoping someone doesn’t break in when I’m wearing sweatpants. I would most definitely carry at work if it wouldn’t get me fired.

Here’s my hypothetical question: If someone came to my company and started killing people and I unfortunately lost my life. Could my family sue the company for negligence by failing to provide a safe workplace? Specifically, for creating an environment where I was unable to protect myself. Since the company’s no firearm policy prevented me from having the opportunity to protect myself with my CCW leaving me defenseless to the attacker.

To me, gun free work places / zones should be illegal unless they can prevent someone from entering the premises with a gun or other weapon. They should be required to have metal detectors and armed guards to protect the unarmed people inside. Anything less should be considered negligent because they are putting targets on the backs of the people within the gun free zone. If you are going to prevent someone from protecting themselves then you are required to protect them. BTW, this inherently would make gun free zones too expensive to maintain.

Just a thought…

 

[M1911]

Could you sue? Yes. You can sue anyone over anything.

Would you win? No.

 

[MassBites]

I work in management of a company that, like most, has been going through a difficult time over the last 1.5 – 2 years and we have had a number of significant workforce reductions during that time. We have all seen the stories about people flipping out after being laid off and coming back to the office with a gun and killing multiple people. This got me thinking about what if it happened to me. What if one of the people I’ve had to notify over the years decided to bring their gun back to work to get revenge? What could / would I do?

Well my company has a no firearm policy. Firearms are not allowed in any building or even in the parking lot. Outside of work, I carry most of the time. The only exception is when I’m wearing my sweatpants getting ready for bed(I can’t keep them up with it on). My wife often jokes about hoping someone doesn’t break in when I’m wearing sweatpants. I would most definitely carry at work if it wouldn’t get me fired.

Here’s my hypothetical question: If someone came to my company and started killing people and I unfortunately lost my life. Could my family sue the company for negligence by failing to provide a safe workplace? Specifically, for creating an environment where I was unable to protect myself. Since the company’s no firearm policy prevented me from having the opportunity to protect myself with my CCW leaving me defenseless to the attacker.

To me, gun free work places / zones should be illegal unless they can prevent someone from entering the premises with a gun or other weapon. They should be required to have metal detectors and armed guards to protect the unarmed people inside. Anything less should be considered negligent because they are putting targets on the backs of the people within the gun free zone. If you are going to prevent someone from protecting themselves then you are required to protect them. BTW, this inherently would make gun free zones too expensive to maintain.

Just a thought…

Good luck trying to persuade a jury in this state.

Nevertheless, here's some food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis




.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Could my family sue the company for negligence by failing to provide a safe workplace? Specifically, for creating an environment where I was unable to protect myself. Since the company’s no firearm policy prevented me from having the opportunity to protect myself with my CCW leaving me defenseless to the attacker.

A more relevant question would be "Could I get an experienced and qualified attorney to take such a case on a contingency fee basis". My guess is the answer would be a resounding NO.

On the other hand, if you got shot by a LTC holder at a company that failed to conform to the near-universal corporate standard (as countless HR experts will testify) of a no guns policy, getting contingency fee representation would be easy.

 

[matt]

This could never happen. Your work place has a policy declaring it a gun free zone. No one can't break that impenetrable barrier with a firearm. Not even Chuck Norris.

Sleep easy in your sweatpants and be happy.

 

[JasonG]

I've had to terminate people and directly manage a decent number. They generally like me and I'm not doing any more terminations any time soon, but I have raised the issue with our HR department as I feel the firm is denying me an ability to defend myself.

The last time I fired someone he screamed in my face and shoved me (He's a foot shorter and about 50 pounds lighter than I am, so it was kind of odd).

The firearms policy in my firm is clearly from boilerplate text and an afterthought. It's in a section with other random things and isn't mentioned in the index.

 

[DozerC6]

Could you sue? Yes. You can sue anyone over anything.

Would you win? No.

Of course, you can sue anyone but the point I was trying to make was larger than that. My point is really, if a company or government prevents an individual from protecting themselves then they should be required to provide protection for the individual. If they don’t and something bad happens then they should be held accountable. Currently, this doesn’t happen.

 

[Bill Nance]

If you get killed in a workplace shooting like the one you describe, you bet your a$$ your widow can sue, and she'll win. But that's aside from the no-gun policy.

If a lawyer can't get money out of a death at work where they'd been firing people a lot and are as aware as we all are of workplace shootings...well, find another lawyer.

Google it and you'll see page after page of lawsuits in the works over this stuff. One VA company lost a 3.1 million dollar verdict for failing to fire an employee who went postal on the job.

As for disarming you, A libertarian response is: If you don't feel safe, work someplace else. I hate that your job does that, but it's their right to do so.

 

[drgrant]

Screw the policy. Carry the gun in such a way that the only way they could find out is by committing a felony against you, unless they have metal detectors or something.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

Of course, you can sue anyone but the point I was trying to make was larger than that. My point is really, if a company or government prevents an individual from protecting themselves then they should be required to provide protection for the individual. If they don’t and something bad happens then they should be held accountable. Currently, this doesn’t happen.

And I want Coakley to go to prison for enforcing the AG's consumer protection regulations. I want Vermont-style gun laws in MA. But what I want the law to be and what the law actually is are two different things.

As Rob Boudrie said, you won't find an attorney to take such a case on contingency. And if you paid the lawyer out of pocket to pursue such a case, you'd lose.

 

[Gooman24]

I work in management of a company that, like most, has been going through a difficult time over the last 1.5 – 2 years and we have had a number of significant workforce reductions during that time. We have all seen the stories about people flipping out after being laid off and coming back to the office with a gun and killing multiple people. This got me thinking about what if it happened to me. What if one of the people I’ve had to notify over the years decided to bring their gun back to work to get revenge? What could / would I do?

Well my company has a no firearm policy. Firearms are not allowed in any building or even in the parking lot. Outside of work, I carry most of the time. The only exception is when I’m wearing my sweatpants getting ready for bed(I can’t keep them up with it on). My wife often jokes about hoping someone doesn’t break in when I’m wearing sweatpants. I would most definitely carry at work if it wouldn’t get me fired.

Here’s my hypothetical question: If someone came to my company and started killing people and I unfortunately lost my life. Could my family sue the company for negligence by failing to provide a safe workplace? Specifically, for creating an environment where I was unable to protect myself. Since the company’s no firearm policy prevented me from having the opportunity to protect myself with my CCW leaving me defenseless to the attacker.

To me, gun free work places / zones should be illegal unless they can prevent someone from entering the premises with a gun or other weapon. They should be required to have metal detectors and armed guards to protect the unarmed people inside. Anything less should be considered negligent because they are putting targets on the backs of the people within the gun free zone. If you are going to prevent someone from protecting themselves then you are required to protect them. BTW, this inherently would make gun free zones too expensive to maintain.

Just a thought…

You should probably put more thought into suing them while you are still breathing.

 

[DozerC6]

Thanks for the comments, I appreciate them but I think I may have made a mistake by personalizing it. I thought telling a story would help make my point but I may have been wrong.

People as a whole currently look at gun free zones as a good thing. This is expected from the anti’s but a majority of people feel the same way. I think this is because most people look at it from a very high and simplistic level. The absence of guns = good.

My point is that currently companies and the government are mostly just creating fake gun free zones because only law abiding citizens will follow the rules. This puts the people in the zone at higher risk of danger because criminals know they are unarmed. I think it should be law that if an agency wants to take away the right of an individual to protect themselves then the agency is required to protect them(i.e. metal detectors & guards).

For example…

Gun free zone done correctly – Washington DC Holocaust Museum. They have metal detectors and guards at the entrance to protect the unarmed people inside. When a lunatic gunman attacked only a guard was killed and the attacker was critically injured. Now I wish the attacker was killed and the guard was fine but no unprotected citizens got killed.

Compare that to fake gun free zones like Virginia Tech & Fort Hood, where only law abiding people were unarmed making them easy targets. The Fort Hood shooting is even more frustrating because most of the victims could have been legally caring firearms otherwise. I don’t think the Muslim Terrorist would have gotten off over 100 shots if everyone were allow to carry their firearms nor would he have gotten in there if there were metal detectors at the entrance. I’m sure there were guards but I bet they were only checking IDs.

I’m really just looking to highlight the discrepancy between a perceived gun free zone and an actual gun free and the dangers of confusing them. Why???? Because creating higher standards and costs to create a gun free zone would be a backdoor way of decreasing the actual number of gun free zones. Today it seems like anyone with a sign and or a document can create one with very little thought or cost involved. That needs to stop.

 

[M1911]

You're preaching to the converted. None of us here agree with gun free zones. But as we've pointed out, you won't win the sort of lawsuit that you've proposed -- we're not saying that's a good thing. We're just point out the reality of the current legal environment.

 

[soloman02]

Screw the policy. Carry the gun in such a way that the only way they could find out is by committing a felony against you, unless they have metal detectors or something.

-Mike

I agree with this. If it were me, I would carry. I value my life and those around me (whether they agree with my politics or not) over that of my job.

A side question should be: what if you do carry, some former employee goes postal and you defend yourself while on the job. The most that would happen is that one would be fired correct?

 

[dwarven1]

Screw the policy. Carry the gun in such a way that the only way they could find out is by committing a felony against you, unless they have metal detectors or something.

Someone finally said it. Thanks, Mike.

As Rob Boudrie said, you won't find an attorney to take such a case on contingency.

I know that Rob's not a lawyer; are you? If not, why should we believe you when you say this?

 

[M1911]

I know that Rob's not a lawyer; are you? If not, why should we believe you when you say this?

No, I'm not a lawyer either. That is my opinion. I suggest that you ask Cross-X or jcohen for their opinions.

 

[JustEric]

You should probably put more thought into suing them while you are still breathing.

I think it would be much easier to argue that the gun-free zone created a life-threatening environment if he were killed than before anything happened. While he's alive, any jury would simply say, "If this is a concern for you now, go find another job where you CAN carry."

 

[06LemansC6]

If you get killed in a workplace shooting like the one you describe, you bet your a$$ your widow can sue, and she'll win. But that's aside from the no-gun policy.

+1 If someone dies of unnatural causes in a workplace I'd be willing to bet there would be a host of attorneys willing to take the case.

 

[red87930]

I agree with this. If it were me, I would carry. I value my life and those around me (whether they agree with my politics or not) over that of my job.

A side question should be: what if you do carry, some former employee goes postal and you defend yourself while on the job. The most that would happen is that one would be fired correct?

Or you would be a hero just like the armed citizen carrying at Mass General. Concealed means concealed. This company policy propably can not get you sent to jail, But this company policy could get you the eternal nap if said crazy co-worker got you in their sights.

 

[wahsben]

I've never been able to find any restrictions listed in the 2nd Amendment on where one can keep and bear arms.

 

[Eye5600]

It's a fine point, and IANAL and might be wrong, but I think when your widow sues your company, it will be for letting the shooter in the door rather than for not allowing you to carry.

 

[Jose]

Screw the policy. Carry the gun in such a way that the only way they could find out is by committing a felony against you, unless they have metal detectors or something.

-Mike

+1

 

[Jose]

I know that Rob's not a lawyer

No shit?

Dude comes across like one........

 

[fencer]

I actually thought about this recently. I run a location for a Canadian company and am the only US based location. The company's official policy is no guns. However, I called the owner of the company and explained to him that I was trained and law abiding and that I would always keep the weapon concealed. He said "No problem, just try to keep it concealed and keep it to yourself that you are carrying".

My point is that if you explain your concerns to one of the head honchos you may get an exemption. If not, get a briefcase with a hidden compartment.

 

[anglaispierre]

I would say there are two things to consider:
1. If you carry you can lose your job.
2. You know the company policy. Agree or not, if you don't like it you leave. Unless the company thinks there is a real risk of someone entering the premises with a gun with the intention of shooting, they do not need to take precautions. No-one is compelled to take precautions to avoid something that is not likely to happen. If they had to, we would be back to having a man walking in front of every vehicle on the road with a red flag.

And there you have it. The risk of being killed or injured in a road traffic accident is far, far higher than the risk of someone walking into your workplace and shooting you. If you placed the resposibility for keeping potentially dangerous drivers off the road on the highway authority, they would simply close all roads to traffic.

 

[Pilgrim]

With more and more shootings in gunfree zones, I can see lawyers, judges and juries eventually agreeing to such lawsuits.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I know that Rob's not a lawyer; are you? If not, why should we believe you when you say this?

I said it was my guess that you would not be able to find a qualified contingency fee lawyer for such a case (and assumed the case proposed would be based only on the gun ban, not on other issues). I didn't say it wouldn't happen. You can believe me when I say that is my best guess .

I would go further and state that if a contingency fee lawyer takes on the case of someone shot in the workplace, that they won't even raise the "failure to allow guns" as an issue - even if it well documented that the employee has a LTC-A/unrestricted and would have carried but for the workplace prohibition. If anything, the argument would be that the company failed to be effective at keeping the guns out, not that they failed to allow a defensive gun to be available.

I've never been able to find any restrictions listed in the 2nd Amendment on where one can keep and bear arms.

You obviously did not see the "void where prohibited by law" that got added to the constitution some where along the way

I know that Rob's not a lawyer

You know correctly. My only experience with the bar has been trying a few cases in my younger years in the days of the 18 year old drinking age.

 

[Gooman24]

I think it would be much easier to argue that the gun-free zone created a life-threatening environment if he were killed than before anything happened. While he's alive, any jury would simply say, "If this is a concern for you now, go find another job where you CAN carry."

I meant it was better for him not necessarily the law suit.

 

[swampy]

And I want Coakley to go to prison for enforcing the AG's consumer protection regulations. I want Vermont-style gun laws in MA. But what I want the law to be and what the law actually is are two different things.

As Rob Boudrie said, you won't find an attorney to take such a case on contingency. And if you paid the lawyer out of pocket to pursue such a case, you'd lose.

I tend to disagree on this. Lawyers are looking for work now too. Many companies would simply pay a settlement to make such a suit go away. Especially so soon after the MGH and FT Hood incidents.

I'd also consider a hammerless .357 mag or a small 9 and some thunderwear and hope nobody tries to give you a reach around in the elevator.

 

[anglaispierre]

I'd also consider a hammerless .357 mag or a small 9 and some thunderwear and hope nobody tries to give you a reach around in the elevator.

Memories of "is that a gun in your pocket ............"