Workplace Violence and Active Shooter Incidents: The Evolving Question of Corporate Liability

In 1984, a tragic event unfurled at a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, California: an active shooter took the lives of 21 people and injured 19. This heartbreaking incident was followed by a lawsuit against McDonald’s, with plaintiffs alleging that the establishment had failed to provide sufficient security. The courts, at that time, did not concur with the plaintiffs.

Back then, such attacks were deemed so improbable that businesses wouldn’t typically account for them in their security considerations. Fast forward to recent years, and the landscape has dramatically changed. With a spike in mass shootings, businesses and institutions are now under increased scrutiny regarding their preventive measures.

With mass shootings becoming tragically common, legal perspectives on corporate and institutional liability are changing. Michael Steinlage, an attorney who has delved deep into this topic, identified that historically mass shootings were rare events. However, in contemporary times, the frequency has alarmingly surged. Since 2011, such incidents have been happening roughly every 64 days, a significant increase from the previous average of every 200 days.

Businesses traditionally were not held liable for injuries from third-party criminal actions unless there was a direct forewarning, such as a specific threat. Yet, with the growing prevalence of shootings, courts are starting to re-evaluate this stance. Recent lawsuits suggest a trend where entities might be deemed liable if they failed in identifying potential threats or taking preventative action. This shift was evidenced in cases like Wagner v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., where an initial dismissal due to lack of foreseeability was overturned on appeal.

Recent events and their consequent lawsuits demonstrate this evolving mindset. One prominent example is the $800 million settlement from MGM to victims of the Las Vegas shooting incident. While settlements don’t necessarily predict jury decisions, they certainly indicate a perception of potential liability.

Another key case is the lawsuit against Remington following the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. While firearm manufacturers have historically been shielded from liability, this case marked a significant deviation, culminating in a $73 million settlement with the victims’ families.

This evolving legal landscape has led to adjustments in insurance policies. Companies like Marsh now provide specialized coverage for active shooter incidents. These policies often encompass costs like property damage, business interruption, legal liability, and post-incident care. However, with the increasing risks, such policies might become pricier.

On the policy-making front, efforts are underway to ensure better gun control and stricter background checks. The administration has taken measures to reduce gun trafficking, strengthen mental health intervention programs, and support the implementation of red flag laws.

Given the prevalent threat, security measures in schools, businesses, and public places are crucial. Access control and preventive technology can play pivotal roles. Modern tech can detect gunshots, identify weapon types, and even auto-initiate lockdown procedures.

While some suggest arming teachers as a solution, experts like Haggard believe that this approach might be insufficient against high-grade weaponry. If stringent gun control isn’t achievable, then ramping up security measures becomes even more imperative.

In conclusion, the rise in active shooter incidents in the US has fundamentally shifted the conversation about liability for businesses and institutions. While the landscape is still evolving, one thing is clear: establishments need to be proactive in ensuring the safety of their patrons and employees.