Not if a customer spilled the liquid.
If a customer spilled a liquid, and someone slipped in it, no court would say it was the business's fault. Now, if a customer spilled a liquid, and the store left it there, made no attempt to clean it in a timely fashion, and then someone slipped in it, there would be (and has been) a court case in which the store would lose.
The issue would be the store not removing an obvious actual hazard, which of course, is separate from the previous issue about stores being responsible for other people's behavior.
Thomas, what your post, as a whole, demonstrates is a failure to understand society's current bent to always hold someone else accountable (never the individual) - preferably someone else with deep pockets.
Interesting choice of strong phrasing. And an incorrect statement about my level of understanding.
I'll note that never here have I mentioned what
society believes. I talked about
legal issues and rights. I think it is obvious that much of society wants to blame everyone else for their issues, wants to have everything handed to them, and wants to get as much as possible from other people without having to do anything for it.
That is completely separate from what the
current law states, and is also separate from any understanding of
civil rights.
Society has made the rules. We can either ignore them or we can use them to our advantage.
Or even better, we can actually use current law to useful effect. And in addition, make certain that future laws do not make individuals responsible for the actions of OTHER people.
After all, societal wishes for free bread and circuses have not yet been turned into force of law. So why don't we make sure it doesn't, instead of simply saying "Society has made the rules" and so we should just accept "society's current bent to always hold someone else accountable".
As a business owner, you no longer have the right in this country to refuse service to someone if that someone is a protected minority. Refusing service has simply been labeled as a form of discrimination and numerous court cases have held this to be "true" in contemporary society.
Yep. I believe that among other things, I specifically even referenced a Colorado law regarding that.
....which is a completely separate issue from what we are talking about.
I note also that you can't refuse service to a protected minority
because they are a member of that minority. You can certainly refuse service to them if they don't meet other qualifications such as "no shirt, no shoes, no service."
Point being: making people or businesses responsible for the actions of outside parties is a bad idea, no matter how much greedy people want to make it so. As such, fighting against potential laws that would cause that to happen is a good idea.
Currently, I can (and have) told people to leave my martial arts classes because their attitude was such that I simply didn't want my name associated with any action of theirs that might have occurred. I have the right to do that. I can't tell someone to "get out" because they are a minority, or due to a number of other specific protected demographics---but I can tell idiots that I won't teach them how to hurt people.
In a similar fashion, business owners can tell people that they won't serve folks with mohawks. Or hair past their waist. Or nose rings. Or who don't have tattoos. They can do whatever they like in that respect, as long as it is not discrimination based on specified protected demographics.
You want to come in to my business? You have to meet my standards. If not, well then, you don't have to come into my business.
Here's a thought: When I teach a CQT class, no one is allowed a live weapon (of any type) in the classroom area. No ammunition, no guns without barrel blockers or practice barrels, no knives, OC, or batons. Nothing.
Does that mean that if someone comes in to rob us all, I'm in trouble for not defending everyone? Because I'm certainly telling everyone they aren't allowed live weapons in my classroom at that time.
Are we going to need new insurance from the NRA whenever we teach a basic pistol class? Because we force people to be unarmed there! No ammunition! Can't have a live gun! Just like the movie theater in Colorado!
Or maybe, just maybe, making business owners liable in this case is a bad idea. And saying that society makes the rules, we need to accept that and fix our "failure to understand" is not only a bad idea---but it rather completely misses the point.
