Should Cracker Barrel Be Liable For Lack Of Protection?

[steves 50de]

And another thing, some will argue that the lawyers will only go after the deep pockets. Some people, whether they are CHL holders or not have umbrella protection on their insurance. During the discovery phase of litigation that might be asked of a CHL holder. So if you have any umbrella coverage that's more than six figures then you could be targeted.

I don't know about this type of litigation but I've always been told for traffic accidents you can't question who is paying. It can't even be brought up on court if insurance is covering it or the defendant. If one could, then all jurits would just inflate the heck out of payouts if insurance is found to be paying.

A million dollar liability policy on your insurance may one day drag us CHL holders in the mix of this litigation,... not saying I have one,... just sayin.

[High Power]

And another thing, some will argue that the lawyers will only go after the deep pockets. Some people, whether they are CHL holders or not have umbrella protection on their insurance. During the discovery phase of litigation that might be asked of a CHL holder. So if you have any umbrella coverage that's more than six figures then you could be targeted.

I don't know about this type of litigation but I've always been told for traffic accidents you can't question who is paying. It can't even be brought up on court if insurance is covering it or the defendant. If one could, then all jurits would just inflate the heck out of payouts if insurance is found to be paying.

A million dollar liability policy on your insurance may one day drag us CHL holders in the mix of this litigation,... not saying I have one,... just sayin.

You could be damned if you pull your gun and damned if you don't.

Did anyone know that you could be prosecuted for failure to assist a police officer if requested? So if I refuse to help a LEO beat or shoot a BG I could get charged with a crime. If I do beat or shoot a BG because the law says I have to then I could get sued by the BG or the BG's family.

2921.23 Failure to aid a law enforcement officer.
(A) No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer, when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense, or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to aid a law enforcement officer, a minor misdemeanor.

Effective Date: 01-01-1974

[M-Quigley]

Did anyone know that you could be prosecuted for failure to assist a police officer if requested? So if I refuse to help a LEO beat or shoot a BG I could get charged with a crime. If I do beat or shoot a BG because the law says I have to then I could get sued by the BG or the BG's family.

2921.23 Failure to aid a law enforcement officer.
(A) No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer, when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense, or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to aid a law enforcement officer, a minor misdemeanor.

Effective Date: 01-01-1974

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where I would be physically involved in detaining or apprehending someone, particularly a shooting scenario, that wouldn't fall under the bolded part.

[High Power]

Did anyone know that you could be prosecuted for failure to assist a police officer if requested? So if I refuse to help a LEO beat or shoot a BG I could get charged with a crime. If I do beat or shoot a BG because the law says I have to then I could get sued by the BG or the BG's family.

2921.23 Failure to aid a law enforcement officer.
(A) No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer, when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense, or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to aid a law enforcement officer, a minor misdemeanor.

Effective Date: 01-01-1974

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where I would be physically involved in detaining or apprehending someone, particularly a shooting scenario, that wouldn't fall under the bolded part.

There are a lot of arm chair quarterbacks on a jury. People that have never been in a gun-fight let alone a fist fight will make hindsight assumptions about decisions that you had to make in a split second.

If a LEO gets upset with you because you didn't help him or her and the prosecutor wants to maintain the 99% conviction rate to look good for reelection then things could get very interesting.

Think about this; how many times have we watched videos of a beating or altercation or incident with a LEO and the viewers say something like; "Why wasn't the guy taking the video doing anything to help? Look at all those people in the video just standing there and watching; why didn't anyone bother to help?"

It's that kind of attitude that a jury could have to make your life miserable.

It could get even worse for people who have had a lot of training and experience with firearms; former LEOs, military personnel, graduates of schools like Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, Front Sight and others. You could be deemed an "expert" in front of jury by a prosecutor. So that would not be the time to brag about your marksmanship skills. The prosecutor could argue that because you are an "expert" then you were in a better position to render the requested aid to the officer than someone without the training or experience.

The same can be said for martial artists with black belts when it comes to taking down a suspect and hand cuffing them.

I'm not saying that we should not render aid to a LEO if it is within our power and ability without unnecessary risk. However, I'm not going to sweep the room ahead of a LEO just because he doesn't want to take the risk himself.

What bothers me about this is if one of us should help a LEO cuff & stuff a BG in the officer's car then some sort of police brutality takes place, that we were not a part of, then there's the risk that we could be dragged into a lawsuit as a party. Again, think about the umbrella coverage that some people may have and the deep-pockets mentality.

Lots of states have the good Samaritan laws on the books that provide immunity for a reasonable person taking reasonable actions to save a person's life; such as cutting off a leg that is pinned under the wreckage of a burning automobile. Yes, that is a far-fetched example. We already have a good Samaritan law in Ohio, ORC 2305.23. So we ought to have immunity if we're conscripted into service by a LEO.

[docachna]

And another thing, some will argue that the lawyers will only go after the deep pockets. Some people, whether they are CHL holders or not have umbrella protection on their insurance. During the discovery phase of litigation that might be asked of a CHL holder. So if you have any umbrella coverage that's more than six figures then you could be targeted.

I don't know about this type of litigation but I've always been told for traffic accidents you can't question who is paying. It can't even be brought up on court if insurance is covering it or the defendant. If one could, then all jurits would just inflate the heck out of payouts if insurance is found to be paying.

Mentioning insurance in Ohio courts is grounds for a mistrial, although many judges (see "Lawyers For Justice", above) are loathe to grant it. Juries are left to guess whether the defendant has any liability coverage, or if so, how much. Sometimes it's an easy call; sometimes, not so much.

[High Power]

Regarding the subject of being conscripted by a LEO, I don't think the state would pay for any medical bills or disability that resulted if one of us was hurt in the line of "duty."

[rbel]

Since the police do not have a duty to protect (see Warren v. District of Columbia) how can Cracker Barrel?
This is one of those case that the plaintiff's attorney figures Cracker Barrel will settle for some undisclosed amount because fighting it will end up costing more in attorneys fees and bad publicity.

[docachna]

This is one of those case that the plaintiff's attorney figures Cracker Barrel will settle for some undisclosed amount because fighting it will end up costing more in attorneys fees and bad publicity.

* It is more than likely Cracker Barrell's liability insurance company, not CB, who is fighting the suit.
* If CB has insurance, the policy almost certainly gives the insurance company the sole discretion on whether to settle or fight.
* There IS a big component of a financial decision involved in the carrier deciding to settle or fight, along with the perceived strength of the defendant's legal arguments, presentation of plaintiff and defendant, VENUE (liberal Cuyahoga), etc. It's not entirely money, but finances unquestionably enter into the decision. (Bad publicity for the insured/defendant is a very minor consideration if it is an insurance company deciding.)

* If CB is self-insured, then all the above goes out the window.