Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zak | Hacker News Reader

Yes. In general, business owners aren't expected to prevent crimes against their customers. If someone attacks me at a bar or grocery store, I probably won't get very far trying to sue the owner for failing to check everyone for weapons on entry. I'm not sure I'd have more success with a concert venue, but it appears insurance companies perceive enough risk to demand certain procedures.

Codifying that expectation in law would reduce costly and obnoxious security theater. Of course, a business advertising a certain level of security could be sued for failing to provide it.

View on HN

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

The point is that it can easily be overridden with statute

"business owners meeting definition X are only liable in conditions Y"

This is a stupid point. “The current law can easily be overridden by passing a new law.”

No shit.

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.

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.

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

No, your position is: "I think it would be a good idea to create an explicit carve out in the law saying that there is no premise liability for a property owner or event organizer due to a third party committing a crime." and "I don't want a world where I have to submit to searches to go anywhere or do anything."

This means that nobody should be searched when they go anywhere or do anything, and if they aren't and someone gets shot by a third party, stabbed by a third party, or mugged by a third party then there is no liability to the business/landowner in any case. Ever. Searches will not be rare in practice, they will not occur. Airports? Never. Concerts? Never. Hotel rooms? Never. Schools? Never.

And hence we've already established the problem with your position and why it's fringe. Not even you can realistically argue for your own positions without caveats. This is a great example of a motte and bailey fallacy.

I see the miscommunication now. It's possible to interpret what I wrote as "no places/activities should require searches", but what I meant was "not all places/activities should require searches". That's a bit hyperbolic of course since the resources don't exist to search everyone, everywhere, all the time. There has been an increase in recent years, and I would like it reversed.

I am opposed to premises liability being a motivation for anyone to conduct searches. Liability isn't the reason searches are conducted at airports or courthouses to give a couple examples, so eliminating it would not eliminate those searches. Businesses also might have other motivations, such as making their customers feel safer; if that outweighs customers finding it annoying or offensive, some of those would likely continue.

> someone gets shot by a third party, stabbed by a third party, or mugged by a third party then there is no liability to the business/landowner in any case. Ever.

This does correctly state my position.

You say that as if statues are any less ambiguous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com