December 7th, 2007
I’m traveling today but I thought I’d quick point out these two thoughts by Glenn Reynolds:
MY EARLIER POST ON liability for places that ban guns led to some objections: Malls are private property, so why can’t the owners exclude guns if they like?
Well, malls are only sort of private property. You can, for example, exclude people from your home because you don’t like their race or religion; mall owners can’t do that because it’s against public policy, and a mall is a place of public accommodation. In addition, business owners generally take on a higher duty of care for customers on their premises, including a duty to protect them from the violent acts of third parties if those acts are reasonably foreseeable. The question is, given the tendency of mass shootings to occur in places where guns are banned, and given that gun bans take away customers’ ability to defend themselves — and other customers — does this result in liability of shopping malls when such shootings occur?
And:
I’m pretty sure that nobody in the Omaha mall was thinking, “Good thing the crazy guy is the only one here with a gun.”
Tags: NE
