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

Handgunlaw.us Makes it very easy to do.

 

Good, that you found a lawsuit completely unrelated to the issue. Now can you find something about someone defending themselves? Also, as in Ridgelins's case... An Independent Contractor?

 

It goes to an employee acting in the interests of the employer - any wrongful action by an employee (unsure of "contractors" but a case can be made) can be held against the employer.

Why does almost every mahor company have a "no weapons " policy?

 

Because their idiot drivers have tried to sneak them into secured locations such as ports. or into Canada and no gun states. A mega company tells drivers where to go and service all of the lower 48. A no weapons policy keeps them from having to track who can go into nyc/ Connecticut/other nazi states, and who can't. Owner operators and small fleets are much more able to deal with those logistical issues.

 

So these companies not allowing guns also don't allow an employee to smoke? What about any other hazardous activity outside of driving? As it doesn't happen (oh smoking and insurance sure, but not for fear of getting sued)it's irrelevant to the topic.

Again, just one news article about a business owner getting sued (win or lose at this point is ok,) over an employee defending himself from some criminal?
This is what this whole thread is about. The ability to defend oneself from some criminal. Let's focus and keep on topic please....

 

Interesting thread! I never thought of this from a fleet owners perspective.

I would say policy=no but obviously not enforceable.

 

Treyvon Martin's estate/parents sued George Zimmerman's HOA. Zimmerman was acquitted of all criminal charges, but the civil suit against thr HOA went forward and was settled. Zimmerman was acting as a defacto employee, thus the HOA was potentiality liable for his actions.

The case I mentioned earlier - smoking had nothing to do with the gentlemans job. However because he was using the hotel room as an "office", doing work related activities, he was "acting in the interestes of his employer ". Thus his employer is potentially liable for any all actions the employee takes.

@spyder7723 - I was referencing all industry, not just drivers.

 

Everyone these days is potentially liable for something at any given time. Trying to outsmart potential lawyers representing a potentially injured client is a fools game. Even when people THINK they're doing the right thing it can turn out to not be.

 

See, now that's the biggest problem. All too often an organization "settles" a suit it has no business paying out on to "make it go away". Sorry, but if YOUR family member assaulted me or someone in my organization and myself or an associate shot the stupid thug, I'm not paying one red cent in hush money. You don't get to profit from the criminal activity of your kin...not if I'm the one expected to cut the check. File a suit on me, I'll add a zero or two and file a countersuit against your dead kin's estate to pay for my costs in recovering my truck, hiring a replacement driver, and anything else I think I can justify tacking on.

 

We are all aware of the ambulance chasers..
Even Police departments get sued daily for shooting CRIMINALS yet they still keep doing their job.. no reason for you sissy’s to give up your second amendment right and that right of your employees because your scared of the ambulance chasers..