7 ms·

Ok, but it seems like a bit of a non-sequitur to say “ business owners aren't expected to prevent crimes against their customers” when there’s a body of law to

Ok, but it seems like a bit of a non-sequitur to say “ business owners aren't expected to prevent crimes against their customers” when there’s a body of law to the contrary.

Zak 2y ago
Is there? In most US states, the concept of premises liability seems to be derived entirely from case law, not statute. Some states appear to have statutes limiting its scope, such as https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_13-21-115 https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_13-21-115 Edit: to be clear, I don't think there's anything actually stopping someone from attempting to sue a bar or grocery store over a crime committed there, but it usually doesn't happen and would likely be an uphill battle for the plaintiff.
- staticautomatic 2y ago
  So what? It's not like common law has less effect. "Body of law" is understood by lawyers to include both common and statutory law.
  - Zak 2y ago
    I will concede the technical point: there is a body of law that sometimes expects business owners to prevent crimes and sometimes doesn't, with a whole lot of ambiguity about exactly what any given owner is actually expected to do. I think that ambiguity should be reduced by putting criminal acts out of scope.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    The point is that it can easily be overridden with statute "business owners meeting definition X are only liable in conditions Y"
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - abduhl 2y ago
      This is a stupid point. “The current law can easily be overridden by passing a new law.” No shit.
      - Zak 2y ago
        I think a better argument here is that common law/case law here is ambiguous enough to create a situation where there's an unreasonable and unpredictable risk for certain kinds of businesses. Another problematic case this sort of liability leads to is hotels in Las Vegas routinely searching guest rooms after a lawsuit following the 2017 shooting. I don't think it's desirable to expect hotels to search rooms or to call the police if someone has "too much" luggage. That's paranoid, an invasion of privacy, and unlikely to prevent a future mass murder. I don't want a world where I have to submit to searches to go anywhere or do anything, and I hope that's not a fringe position.
        abduhl 2y ago
        I was only responding to GP's statement that common law can be overridden by statute. If I wanted to respond to the idea that premises liability should be eliminated then I would have responded to your first post. And I actually do think that most people would call your position a fringe position once you actually start talking details like "but what about guns in schools?" If you truly believe that you shouldn't have to submit to a search to go ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING then you hold a fringe position.
        Zak 2y ago
        My position is that it is undesirable for premises liability to lead to an increase in private businesses searching their guests, not that nobody should be searched anywhere for any reason. I do think it should be rare in practice: airports, probably; concerts, probably not absent some unusual threat; hotel rooms pretty much never. It appears routinely searching students in public schools is fairly rare in the USA; under 8% use metal detectors[0]. That certainly does not mean they're allowed to bring guns, just that they probably won't be discovered if they do. [0] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=334 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=334

Ok, but it seems like a bit of a non-sequitur to say “ business owners aren't expected to prevent crimes against their customers” when there’s a body of law to the contrary.

Zak 2y ago

Is there? In most US states, the concept of premises liability seems to be derived entirely from case law, not statute. Some states appear to have statutes limiting its scope, such as https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_13-21-115 https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_13-21-115 Edit: to be clear, I don't think there's anything actually stopping someone from attempting to sue a bar or grocery store over a crime committed there, but it usually doesn't happen and would likely be an uphill battle for the plaintiff.

staticautomatic 2y ago
So what? It's not like common law has less effect. "Body of law" is understood by lawyers to include both common and statutory law.
- Zak 2y ago
  I will concede the technical point: there is a body of law that sometimes expects business owners to prevent crimes and sometimes doesn't, with a whole lot of ambiguity about exactly what any given owner is actually expected to do. I think that ambiguity should be reduced by putting criminal acts out of scope.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  The point is that it can easily be overridden with statute "business owners meeting definition X are only liable in conditions Y"
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - abduhl 2y ago
    This is a stupid point. “The current law can easily be overridden by passing a new law.” No shit.
    - Zak 2y ago
      I think a better argument here is that common law/case law here is ambiguous enough to create a situation where there's an unreasonable and unpredictable risk for certain kinds of businesses. Another problematic case this sort of liability leads to is hotels in Las Vegas routinely searching guest rooms after a lawsuit following the 2017 shooting. I don't think it's desirable to expect hotels to search rooms or to call the police if someone has "too much" luggage. That's paranoid, an invasion of privacy, and unlikely to prevent a future mass murder. I don't want a world where I have to submit to searches to go anywhere or do anything, and I hope that's not a fringe position.
      - abduhl 2y ago
        I was only responding to GP's statement that common law can be overridden by statute. If I wanted to respond to the idea that premises liability should be eliminated then I would have responded to your first post. And I actually do think that most people would call your position a fringe position once you actually start talking details like "but what about guns in schools?" If you truly believe that you shouldn't have to submit to a search to go ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING then you hold a fringe position.
        Zak 2y ago
        My position is that it is undesirable for premises liability to lead to an increase in private businesses searching their guests, not that nobody should be searched anywhere for any reason. I do think it should be rare in practice: airports, probably; concerts, probably not absent some unusual threat; hotel rooms pretty much never. It appears routinely searching students in public schools is fairly rare in the USA; under 8% use metal detectors[0]. That certainly does not mean they're allowed to bring guns, just that they probably won't be discovered if they do. [0] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=334 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=334