Hypothetical Lawsuit question. Interesting…?

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

I agree you might find an attorney to take the suit just because there is a victim and a deep set of pockets, but I stand by my guess that "failure to allow a defensive sidearm" would not be used as the issue if it went to trial.

 

[steveyc272]

I stand by my guess that "failure to allow a defensive sidearm" would not be used as the issue if it went to trial.

I agree, but it sure would be an interesting argument though. The hypothetical without such an argument really doesn't have much merit. Claims against companies for failing to provide adequate security to prevent third party criminal actions are very difficult to prove. First and foremost, you have to prove that the shooting, in this case, was foreseeable. The argument that some sort of danger in the workplace in the future does not satisfy the foreseeability standard.

However, arguing that you could have protected yourself with a ccw but for the companies no-gun policy is interesting. The major problem with that claim, among others, is that no-gun policies are so widely adapted and upheld. Insurance companies would surely be fighting against you too. Although, the adaptation of "guns at work" laws in several states, allowing employees to secure their handgun in their vehicle while at work, may be a segue into such an argument (though the rational is certainly different).

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The major problem with that claim, among others, is that no-gun policies are so widely adapted and upheld.

About 20 years ago, I saw a film put out by a professional HR association for the purpose of training HR people on handing workplace discipline. The "short form" was the association was advising that progressive discipline (documented warnings, etc.) be used except in extreme and obvious cases such as theft, assault in the workplace and, you guessed, it, possession of firearms on company premises. This is the prevailing thought process in that profession, to the point where anyone thinking otherwise is considered to be "obviously wrong" by mainstream thinking.

One would get MUCH further in court arguing that failure to prohibit firearms was negligence than by arguing that such policies endanger employees. Part of rational though process is seeing things as they actually are, not as one would prefer them to be.

 

[steveyc272]

One would get MUCH further in court arguing that failure to prohibit firearms was negligence that by arguing that such policies endanger employees. Part of rational though process is seeing things as they actually are, not as one would prefer them to be.

I completely agree. That's the possibly insurmountable hurdle with the other argument.

 

[JustEric]

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

This isn't a 2A issue. The office he works in is private property, and the restriction is a condition of employment.

I'm not saying he should or shouldn't carry at work. That's his decision to make. The employer, however, is well within their rights to disallow weapons on the premises, just as any of us would be well within our rights to disallow weapons in our own homes.

 

[Underwhere]

It's not illegal to bring your gun to work. It's policy.

Bring your gun to work. I'd rather be fired than dead.


You can carry with sweatpants by the way
www.smartcarry.com

 

[Zombieoutfitters]

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.

I am NOT a lawyer - but my limited experience leads me to believe that at BEST the company could press some type of charges...perhaps a law in your town or state in regards to carrying firearms in areas posted as prohibited.

Personally you could lose your job (obviously) if they find out.

If you save lives, you'll likely be a hero then comes the shit storm of "why did you have a gun?"

If you god forbid injure someone else in defending against an armed madman then the law could bite you in the ass. But that would happen anywhere.

 

[drgrant]

I am NOT a lawyer - but my limited experience leads me to believe that at BEST the company could press some type of charges...perhaps a law in your town or state in regards to carrying firearms in areas posted as prohibited.

Even that is a stretch- None of the states in New England have binding signage to that extent. There is nothing they could charge you with. You could get fired, that'd be about it.

-Mike

 

[Baystatesuks]

I am not seeing much of a cause of action here based on the facts. Now, if you terminated an employee, and he yelled out when he was leaving, "I am going to come back with my gun and kill you all!" and the President or other officers of the company heard it, I think you have a better case, given that they were on notice of a potentially dangerous condition and did nothing. Even with these loaded facts, I am not sure you would get anything. It would all come down to the "duty" the employer owes to the employee in day to day operations. Off hand, I am unsure that issue has ever been decided with respect to this scenario. I believe, the employer has a general duty to use reasonable measures to protect an employee from danger during the course of their employment.

I think you could easily find a lawyer to take your case. Frankly, this is a lottery scenario. Throw the complaint up against them - if you lose, you aren't out much. But if you were to somehow win, could be lots of $$$$. With legal work sucking these days, plenty of people would take it on some sort of modified contingency fee basis.

Your employer could not bring criminal charges against you for carrying a gun in violation of their policy. They do not have standing to do so. They could sue you civilly though if you did some damage that they were subsequently held liable for when you brought your gun in violation of their policy.

 

[Zombieoutfitters]

Your employer could not bring criminal charges against you for carrying a gun in violation of their policy. They do not have standing to do so. They could sue you civilly though if you did some damage that they were subsequently held liable for when you brought your gun in violation of their policy.

And there you have it. Call me crazy, but that right there sounds like a reason to carry.

 

[Baystatesuks]

And there you have it. Call me crazy, but that right there sounds like a reason to carry.

While true, it would be more difficult for you to sue your employer if they fired you for carrying in violation of their policy. So, if you have other causes of action upon termination, e.g., age, race or gender discrimination, etc., then you might be compromising those as your employer will state "We fired them in violation of the no firearm policy." Your causes wouldn't be waived, but from the MCAD's and the jury's perspective, you clearly violated company policy, which by itself would be grounds for termination (or at least most employment agreements have that in it).

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

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

They could find it if you were injured on the job and didn't have time to get it off your person and into a hiding place before first aid was administered and/or the ambulance crew arrived. Two days ago, a co-worker at my company was taken away in an ambulance with severe chest pains. It happened very suddenly and I really hope that she is OK, because she is a nice person. I took a big chance and brought a rifle with me to work one time because I was planning to go to the range after work to zero a new scope. It stayed behind the seat of my pickup truck and I didn't dare mention it to anyone. If I had been caught with it on company property, I would have been immediately terminated.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If you save lives, you'll likely be a hero then comes the shit storm of "why did you have a gun?"

Or, you could be retroactively assigned to undercover security to save the employer enbarassment, avoid any hassle over 'why was your employee carrying', and preserve workmens comp for the bullets absorbed in the gunfight. I've known it to happen.

 

[KMaurer]

Gun free zone done correctly – Washington DC Holocaust Museum. ...

Compare that to fake gun free zones like Virginia Tech & Fort Hood, ...

A distinction without a difference. There are really three equally distasteful variations. In the first, absolutely nobody has any guns. A great example of this would be the dark ages. There were no accidental gun deaths, no drive-by shootings, and no other forms of gun crimes. Despite all these obvious facts, this Brady Campaign paradise was hardly that attractive to most people. True, the didn't have any guns, but those Huns, Vandals, Goths (both Visi and Ostro) and other assorted barbarians did have a tendency to violence. Even without them, the weak were completely at the mercy of the strong, and any woman without a strong man to protect her was pretty much available to any man with the will.

The second is the "true" version mentioned above, where some elite are the only ones with guns. The only question is how does the unarmed populace restrain the will of these praetors? Plato's "noble lie" has never worked and never will. As Juvenal wrote a few centuries later, "sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes qui nunc lasciuae furta puellae hac mercede silent? crimen commune tacetur." (Who watches the watchmen?)

The third, while generally decried here is really no worse than any of the other two. In it, one gets violated by anyone with the chutzpah to break the "no guns" rule, whether a Jihadist shrink at Ft Hood, a disgruntled employee at Edgewater Technologies or a couple of modern-day high school "goths" at Littleton, Colorado. How exactly is this any better or any worse than getting it from the aristocracy and their paid enforcers or from a bunch of illiterate devotees of Odin?

How about this alternative: "God created man, Sam Colt made them equal." Works a whole hell of a lot better for me.

Ken