That would be legislating from the bench. Criminal acts are not part of the scope of employment and barring that the criminal displayed evidence manifesting a propensity for criminal action, the employer is blameless. He has no duty to assume his workers are psychos ready to snap, as those courts and trial lawyers hold, and he has no justification to extend his jurisdiction into the relm of his employees rights and property. The employer is limited to control accidents on his parking lot and in his buildings and consider his own product, or services defect.
Dear spunkets,
The real question is, if a company has, say, 500 employees, and they're allowed to bring firearms to work, and folks do, and someone goes "postal," can a plaintiff's lawyer persuade a civil jury whether that result was foreseeable?
In fact, that is the question that drives these policies. There are many juries that can be persuaded that this is the case.
If the company then prevents anyone from bringing a firearm to work, even to the point of not permitting them on the premises, even in the parking lot, the company can say that it took every reasonable action to prevent the otherwise foreseeable event that someone might go nuts, bring their gun to work, and shoot the place up.
Whether you think that is a reasonable conclusion or not, or whether I think it is a reasonable conclusion or not, really doesn't matter.
The likelihood that I would ever be asked to serve on a jury is very low.
sitetest