HB 4277 Immunity to businesses if someone uses a firearm in self-defense

[zigziggityzoo]

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2017-HB-4277

Basically if a business does not prohibit guns explicitly, they can't be liable if someone who enters the business uses their firearm in self-defense.

If they DO prohibit guns with a posted sign, this immunity does not apply.

[Roundballer]

Interesting, maybe a first step towards forcing employers to allow firearms stored in employee's vehicles?

Currently, the business can't be held responsible for the actions of a third party anyways, sign or no sign. Or is this just an attempt to lower insurance rates for these businesses.

[zigziggityzoo]

Currently, the business can't be held responsible for the actions of a third party anyways, sign or no sign. Or is this just an attempt to lower insurance rates for these businesses.

Businesses claim there are liability concerns which is why they ban guns. They don't want to be to blame for allowing guns by default by not banning them.

This would take away that claim by stating outright that they CANT be held liable for not banning guns if someone uses them in self-defense.

The only problem I see is that it's not clearly stated that there is no immunity if an agent of the land owner or tenant is armed for the purposes of their job (contracted security or staff security, for instance - a business owner or the contracted agency should be liable for their own employee's conduct, IMO).

[Leader]

Businesses claim there are liability concerns which is why they ban guns. They don't want to be to blame for allowing guns by default by not banning them.

This would take away that claim by stating outright that they CANT be held liable for not banning guns if someone uses them in self-defense.

The only problem I see is that it's not clearly stated that there is no immunity if an agent of the land owner or tenant is armed for the purposes of their job (contracted security or staff security, for instance - a business owner or the contracted agency should be liable for their own employee's conduct, IMO).

And I think you should be liable for MY actions.

[Redmond]

Interesting. If this passes, it puts a responsibility on businesses who choose to ban firearms to enforce that ban.

[luckless]

Sure would put a wrench into the insurance industry refusing to allow guns in gun shows.

[SteveS]

Businesses claim there are liability concerns which is why they ban guns. They don't want to be to blame for allowing guns by default by not banning them.

I am skeptical of this claim. If it were true, why don't more businesses ban guns? I can understand a smaller business just nit knowing, but there are many large, risk averse corporations that would ban guns if they thought it would have an effect on them.

As Roundballer already pointed out, a business is not liable for the unforeseen criminal acts of a third party.

[jgillmanjr]

I'm curious if this would affect the doctrine of respondeat superior.