Recently I was at the headquarters of an international Fortune 500 company giving a presentation on concealed carry policy development and civil liability issues. As part of the presentation, we discussed potential civil liability arguments that both the plaintiff and defense are likely to make if there is a shooting in one of their stores. We also looked at civil immunity statutes and how those could impact civil litigation.
During the discussion, a comment was made that really got me thinking: “Why aren’t there more civil immunity statutes?” This is a very good question. To date, only 10 states have some form of civil immunity clause within their concealed and/or open carry statutes. (See chart below for a summary of each immunity statute). Considering the scope of civil liability that is at stake after a shooting incident, 20% of the country providing immunity is not enough.
If a shooting incident takes place within or close to a store, restaurant or hotel, you can rest assured that 9 times out of 10, a civil lawsuit will be filed against the corporate entity in possession of the property. Since the shooter is not likely to have any money, the victim looks for any viable claim that could result in the payment of damages.
If there is one thing we all know, it is that litigation is expensive. Even if a defendant has a strong defense and anticipates a summary judgment finding, getting through fact discovery and to the summary judgment stage in a case involving a death or significant injuries is very pricey.
In theory, the only possible way around this expense is for states to have strong civil immunity statutes. Such statutes are not guaranteed to prevent litigation or provide protection, but once there is case law and the courts strongly uphold the statutes, litigation is likely to decrease. When litigation is filed, getting to the summary judgment stage and having summary judgment granted should be much easier.
The real question is, how do we get more civil immunity statutes written and passed? In my opinion, it is up to big corporations that will be most impacted in those states that do not have civil immunity to make it happen. The pressure needs to take place on a state by state basis, but in the end it will be worth it. If just one shooting happens on your property, the financial implications can be significant.
The only real protection available is immunity. So get those lobbyist moving!
Civil Immunity Statutes by State
| STATE | STATUTE | TYPE OF IMMUNITY |
| Alabama | 13A-11-91 | An employer and the owner and/or lawful possessor of the property on which the employer is situated shall be absolutely immune from any claim, cause of action or lawsuit that may be brought by any person seeking any form of damages that are alleged to arise, directly or indirectly, as a result of any firearm brought onto the property of the employer, owner, or lawful possessor by an employee, including a firearm that is transported in an employee’s privately owned motor vehicle. Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide immunity from liability to an employer, business entity, or property owner for his or her own affirmative wrongful acts that cause harm, damage, or injury to another. |
| Florida | 790.251 | A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions of public or private employers that are unrelated to compliance with this section. |
| Georgia | 16-11-127 | No employer, property owner or owner’s agent shall be held liable in any criminal or civil action for damages resulting from occurrence involving the transportation, storage, possessions or use of firearm. In any action brought against employer, employer’s agent, property owner or owner’s agent relating to the criminal use of firearms in the workplace, the plaintiff shall be liable for all legal costs of such employer/owner if such action is concluded in such employer/owner’s favor. |
| Kansas | 75-7c10 | Any private entity which provides adequate security measures in a private building and which conspicuously posts signage in accordance with this section prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun in such building as authorized by the personal and family protection act shall not be liable for any wrongful act or omission relating to actions of persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun concerning acts or omissions regarding such handguns. |
| Louisiana | Senate Bill 51 (Act No. 684) | Grants property owners, tenants, public or private employers, and business entities immunity from civil liability for damages resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving a firearm transported or stored pursuant to the Act (except in cases where the property owner, tenant, employer or business violates the Act itself). |
| Maine | Sec. 1. 26 MRSA §600, sub-§1 | An employer or an agent of an employer may not be held liable in any civil action for damages, injury or death resulting from or arising out of another person’s actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, the theft of a firearm from an employee’s vehicle, unless the employer or an agent of the employer intentionally solicited or procured the other person’s injurious actions. |
| Mississippi | § 45-9-55 | A public or private employer shall not be liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving the transportation, storage, possession or use of a firearm covered by this section. |
| North Dakota | 62.1-02-13 | A public or private employer is not liable in a criminal or civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions of public or private employers that are unrelated to compliance with this section. |
| Ohio | Sec. 2923.126 | Immunity given for civil action when caused by a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property unless the employer acted with malicious purposes. Immunity also given where employer prohibits licensee from bringing handgun on premises. |
| Wisconsin | 175.60 (15m) | A person that does not prohibit an individual (including employees) from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision. |