I guess I will put this here since their is not a fleet owners sections,

I've been told that I think I know everything. Does that count?

 

Yes, any one can sue over anything. However an individual/company can take steps to make frivolous lawsuits untenable. It's basic risk management - first identify risk, second eliminate unnecessary risks, third mitigate the potential impact of necessary risk. Explicitly allowing an employee to be armed is a risk for the employer and makes passing the first prong of the respondant superior test (scope of employment) easier to pass.

@ZVar - I can't pull what I read the other night, still looking for other avenues. In the meantime

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_12-cv-00958/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_12-cv-00958-0.pdf

In this case the estate of the thug tried to sue Kroger because the manager shot the thug. Kroger had a "no weapons" policy in place. Page 7 shows what I've been saying, the policy shows the manager was NOT acting in the interests of his employer which removes the grounds for the lawsuit to proceed. Kroger didn't make any real effort to enforce the policy, but the policy was there and protected them from a protracted lawsuit.

 

But had the manager NOT been armed (in accordance with Kroger's policy) and that manager had been on the receiving end of the gunfire, the family of the manager would have had a STRONG case against Kroger for failing to provide a safe work environment (as required by law, and as evidenced by the fact that he was murdered at work). Hell, had any customers been shot by the thug, Kroger would have been sued for not providing a safe environment for them to shop. Any way you look at it, Kroger was going to get sued by someone...so let's just throw the employee under the bus. Great call.

Personally, I'd rather face the family of a criminal over the death of THEIR loved one instead of the family of my employee. While the thug's family might be more inclined to sue because they are accustomed to playing the system and seeking "free money" wherever they can find it, you bear more responsibility to the families of your employees to keep their loved ones safe. How do you look a widow and her children in the eye and say "I'm sorry, but your husband won't be coming home" knowing that YOU helped cause his death by rendering him defenseless? It's bad enough having to have that conversation following a wreck, but at the hands of a criminal after YOU told him he couldn't carry the means to protect himself? May as well have sent him over the mountains knowing full well the brakes were worn out and not maintaining proper adjustment.

 

Actions have consequences. Her son CHOSE to rob the store. The store clerk did NOT choose to be robbed. I'm perfectly content with a criminal being fitted with a toe tag, especially when they choose to threaten harm to hard-working law-abiding citizens while committing their crimes. Don't want your son getting shot? Tell him to stop robbing people and get an honest job.

 

And how do you look the innocent bystander and their family in the eye when one of your employees doesn't hit what he is aiming at?

And how do you look the rest of your employees in the eye and tell them they no longer have a job and good luck getting home because you've lost everything in a civil suit and the bank has turned off the fuel cards?

When you allow an employee to be armed, you take responsibility for his actions whenever he is "acting within the scope of employment ".

 

And yet you have yet to prove that has ever happened even once....

 

You may need some glasses, aparently your having a hard time seeing the point from that far on the LEFT..

 

I believe you have the right to carry a firearm. I also believe there is no reason to.