Can the workplace be held liable...

[Talldude]

Having a conversations with my workplace owner about allowing liscenced CC holders to carry while at work. The owner is all for it, he owns a towing company and we handle cash and unhappy people in rough areas, but he doesnt want to allow it due to being unsure about the legal reaction if something were to happen. So my question is, is there something legal to show him, or do, that will show the actions of a CHL holder who is under his employment will not bounce back and affect him and the company?

Thank you in advance. If this needs moved to the appropiate section, please do so.

[Chuck]

Having a conversations with my workplace owner about allowing liscenced CC holders to carry while at work. The owner is all for it, he owns a towing company and we handle cash and unhappy people in rough areas, but he doesnt want to allow it due to being unsure about the legal reaction if something were to happen. So my question is, is there something legal to show him, or do, that will show the actions of a CHL holder who is under his employment will not bounce back and affect him and the company?

Thank you in advance. If this needs moved to the appropiate section, please do so.

ORC 2923.126(C)(2)

(a) A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer's decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, "private employer" includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

I hope that helps.
If not, a lawyer will be along shortly to tell us why that doesn't mean what we think it does,,,,

[Talldude]

Does help a little but that last sentence would make for a need of more information on "private employer"

[SeanC]

It's unclear whether the immunity provision was inserted to protect employers who allow employees to carry concealed at work versus protecting business owners who allow customers to carry at work. Still, I don't think legislative intent matters much. The grant of immunity is broad, and should cover both situations. If I was a plaintiff looking to sue, I wouldn't want to fight that immunity battle. But still, it's not absolutely certain that the immunity applies. Even if it does, there are a lot of dumb lawyers and someone might decide to sue anyway.

I doubt your boss would have much to worry about, but it's not a lock.

[sodbuster95]

Even if it does, there are a lot of dumb lawyers and someone might decide to sue anyway.

Not to mention the occasional judge that used to be a dumb lawyer.

[painiac]

The plain language of ORC 2923.126(C)(2)(a) is quite clear. It does not specify any distinction between employees or customers. It grants immunity to private employers for anything that one could argue was related to them either allowing or disallowing licensed carry on the property. I should think that simply citing that law would result in summary dismissal of such a lawsuit.

[3FULLMAGS+1]

The plain language of ORC 2923.126(C)(2)(a) is quite clear. It does not specify any distinction between employees or customers. It grants immunity to private employers for anything that one could argue was related to them either allowing or disallowing licensed carry on the property. I should think that simply citing that law would result in summary dismissal of such a lawsuit.

"My" "interpretation" is that this part of the law was meant to "focus" on "covering the employer" whether they allow or not allow carry in or on their property and not so much "who" was allowed to carry and as painiac stated.....it doesn't make any "clear" distinction between an employee that's carrying OR a customer, but "seems" to lean more towards customers.....in my opinion..... and that's where the problem(?) is. It should have stated that employers have immunity from allowing BOTH employee's AND customers.......not well thought out , as usual.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

The plain language of ORC 2923.126(C)(2)(a) is quite clear. It does not specify any distinction between employees or customers. It grants immunity to private employers for anything that one could argue was related to them either allowing or disallowing licensed carry on the property. I should think that simply citing that law would result in summary dismissal of such a lawsuit.

"My" "interpretation" is that this part of the law was meant to "focus" on "covering the employer" whether they allow or not allow carry in or on their property and not so much "who" was allowed to carry and as painiac stated.....it doesn't make any "clear" distinction between an employee that's carrying OR a customer, but "seems" to lean more towards customers.....in my opinion..... and that's where the problem(?) is. It should have stated that employers have immunity from allowing BOTH employee's AND customers.......not well thought out , as usual.

You can't look at one tiny part of a statute. The statute has to be considered as a whole.

When you read (C)(2)(a), there is ONLY a reference to a "licensee" with nothing indicating that section only applies to customers or employees.

AND, when you read (C)(2)(b), you and see that political subdivisions ALSO have civil immunity with no distinction between public employees or other licensees.

NOW, tie this together with (C)(3)(b), where the General Assembly specifically spells out that a "landlord" can not restrict a "tenant who is a licensee" or " the tenant's guest while the tenant is present" from carrying or possessing a firearm. This means that a landlord CAN prohibit licensees who are not tenants or guests of tenants.

While splitting "employees" and "customers" might get by a trial court, appellate courts have stated that you can not consider an individual statute, or part of a statute, in a vacuum.

A statute must be considered as a whole and as part of the entire Revised Code.

If the General Assembly wanted to differentiate between classes of people with CHL's, they would have done so.

IANAL, but I have read numerous appellate and SCO opinions pointed out to me by wise attorneys.

[WestonDon]

Even if it does, there are a lot of dumb lawyers and someone might decide to sue anyway.

Not to mention the occasional judge that used to be a dumb lawyer.

I don't think there are too many dumb lawyers practicing law. Most of them have already gone into politics. I do think there are some who are greedy, shady, or just full of applesauce. It's when lawyers in the latter group become judges and drink the Kool Aid that the trouble starts.

There will be many opinions put forth on this thread so here's mine; There will be no definitive answer to the question put forth until such time that an actual case works it's way through the courts. That's not going to happen any time soon. Until it does you might as well consult a ouji board.

[Talldude]

Thank you all for your valuable input. Really do appreciate it. But with all the gray areas just in the ORC itself, it will deffinetly be harder to show the boss that he will not be held liable in any way and thus him allowing CC without worry of somethig happening to the company bc of a liscence holder defending properly.

Was also wondering tho, with all the insurances for liscence holders incase something should happen, would any of that help prevent, or steer away, a "victim" from suing(sp) or attacking the company?

[Werz]

The biggest problem with R.C. 2923.126(C)(2)(a) is that no appellate court has yet interpreted the extent of the immunity. I think it's pretty clear that nobody can preface a cause of action upon the fact that the employer permitted a licensee, whether a customer or an employee, to have a firearm in the business or in a business vehicle. By the same token, it's not a universal hold-harmless provision, either. An employer will still be liable for employees who have "problems" that are known to the employer. For instance, if the employer knows that an employee has a bad temper, the employer may still be liable for the violent actions of that employee. Allowing that employee to have a gun may not be a basis of liability, but if that employee is a known "time bomb," that fact, alone, may give rise to liability, and allowing that employee to carry a gun may, in the natural course of things, increase the damages.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

I don't think there are too many dumb lawyers practicing law...

Oh, there's a-plenty.

There are over 1 million lawyers in the US.

If they were graded A,B,C,D & F, on a standard deviation bell curve, around 30% would score D or F.

That's 300,000 dumb lawyers. **

And when I read through the various cases from the Board of Professional Conduct (via Court News Ohio), I realize Ohio has its fair share.

Sure, some of the stories make it sound like these lawyers are evil or corrupt, but then I remember "Hanlon's razor":

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

(**I don't think any of them are members of this forum...but I've been wrong before...and it was usually a lawyer that told me so. )

[AlanM]

Let me tell you about one (dumb/stupid lawyer) here in Charlottesville, VA.
My daughter is in store management with Kroger and has worked as a co-manager in all three Charlottesville stores and now works in Waynesboro (30 mile commute).
She regularly has to go to court (with evidence) to testify in, usually, shoplifting cases.
She is very adept at amassing timeline video records of a person's activity in a store.
Note: there are VERY FEW places in a Kroger store that AREN'T being recorded constantly.

Anyway, last year she got a phone call from a representative of the Virginia Bar Association and asked "Do you know *********?", a local attorney.
Without a seconds hesitation she replied, "OOOH, yes. I know him." , which caused the questioner to pause. (How did she remember him so quickly?)
After a few minutes discussing said local attorney my daughter was asked if she could come to Richmond and provide some information and a statement to a bar association review board. She agreed and got leave to make the trip (Kroger's nickel I believe, not a vacation day).
When she got to Richmond she delivered a folio with a DVD of video showing this jackwagon shoplifting hundreds of dollars of product with date and time stamps shown, and copies of court records, etc. All from the dossier she had created over a couple of years.

The said jackwagon even represented himself when prosecuted on the shoplifting charges, and, of course, lost.
My daughter doesn't press charges if she can't win.

She was told by the man she gave the information and statement to that she had provided better information than he'd ever seen by any other witness.
I'm not sure if the attorney as been dis-barred but I wouldn't doubt it. It turns out his legal practice consists of a total of four clients.
My daughter's telling of this story is MUCH more detailed and hilarious and would make a great comedy routine.

[ashtabula]

As an employer I am not generally responsible for the actions of my customers. ORC 2923.126(C)(2) would provide immunity for my decision to allow customers to carry, and since I'm not responsible for my customers actions, I could claim immunity for my decision.

As an employer I am generally responsible for the actions of my employees. While the ORC may provide immunity for my decision to allow carry, as it pertains to legal actions of my employees, I don't believe it will be of much use as it pertains to a negligent discharge, or a bad shooting. I believe this is why the vast majority of employers will not allow employees to carry. It cost an employer nothing to disallow carry, but it could cost thousands to defend for an employees mistakes.

[djthomas]

Most companies that prohibit their employees from carrying weapons enumerate three circumstances where the employee cannot do so: 1) On company property, 2) In a company vehicle and 3) While conducting company business. Obviously at some point, some lawyers decided there was the potential for liability in each of those circumstances.

As written the immunity statute only covers the first two. Since this is a towing business I imagine the employees spend a good amount of time in condition (3) i.e. out in public and not not sitting in the truck. As Werz pointed out there is no appellate interpretation of the statute, so there's no assurance that the immunity provision would cover every aspect of a tow truck driver's daily work. By the same token, the lack of any appellate interpretation means that in over 12 years the statute has never been put to the test in all of the great state of Ohio. Not only are there no appellate cases on it, but I'm not even aware of a single court of common pleas case. The issue has literally never come up.

Also to be considered is whether one merely allows their employees to carry by being silent on the issue versus requiring them to carry as a condition of employment.