[Alberta's Child]

I’d be curious to hear from FR attorneys about the potential civil liability of the property owner in a scenario where a “gun-free” zone is established and someone comes in and shoots the place up anyway.

It goes back to something I’ve said for years in corporate management: “If you put up a sign to deal with X (whatever that might be), you’ve acknowledged that you recognize X to be a problem and you therefore have a responsibility to deal with it.”

[mewzilla]

Simon’s insurer/s will likely be picking up the tab for any settlements.

[mewzilla]

But, per local reporting, there have been a series of gun-related incidents at that mall over the last few months...

Note to Simon: Psssst, I don’t think your signage is working.

Unless it’s just there to cover your corporate a$$.

In which case, you’re gonna need a bigger sign.

[T.B. Yoits]

I’d be curious to hear from FR attorneys about the potential civil liability of the property owner in a scenario where a “gun-free” zone is established and someone comes in and shoots the place up anyway.

A jury at the state level found Cinemark wasn't liable in the shooting in their Aurora Colorado theater. A Federal judge dismissed a separate suit based on the state case although the appeals are still in the works.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-shooting-lawsuit-idUSKCN11K0B6

Potential civil liability is up to a jury and the more shootings there are with disparate outcomes, juries will more likely find the property owners and managers liable for removing protection from patrons.

[TomGuy]

I’d be curious to hear from FR attorneys about the potential civil liability of the property owner in a scenario where a “gun-free” zone is established and someone comes in and shoots the place up anyway.

I would surmise it would depend on how the state CW law is worded and what exemptions, if any, are enumerated. The CW law may supercede local establishment rules or local/store rules may supercede the CW law.