Man shot in bar sues bar

[safeinOhio]

In the article the man that shot him was not charged with the shooting and he was only charged with a misdemeanor?


http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2010/Mar/20/ar_news_032010_story6.asp?d=032010_story6,2010,M


A Findlay man who was shot at a Lima bar last year has filed a lawsuit against the establishment and its staff, saying they failed to protect him.


Michael A. Macklin Jr. sued The Crab Shack and Club Mojo, both listed at 134 N. Main St., Lima, its owners and numerous other people associated with the property, as well as Tajh A. Gibson, who Macklin claims shot him.

Macklin was shot in the leg on March 15, 2009, and claims he has suffered "severe and permanent injuries" as a result. He is asking the court for more than $25,000 in damages.

In the lawsuit, he accused the bar of failing to hire and train employees to deal with violent situations, not having enough bouncers or bartenders to protect patrons, lacking adequate security systems, and failing to screen patrons, in particular Gibson, to prevent them from bringing in guns.

[shadowrider]

1. Was there a "No Firearms Allowed" sign on the door?

The article is seriously devoid of information. Were firearms allowed inside? Who started it? Was the shooting "self-defense"? Only charging the shooter with a misdemeanor seems to me he was somewhat (not fully) justified. He wasn't charged with being drunk with a weapon (and if he was, should have his CCW (if he has one) revoked.)

Need more info before I can make up my mind on this one.

[safeinOhio]

2. It does sound strange. In Ohio

only off duty LEOs can carry in any place that serves alcohol.

[RC]

3. How can a lion be off duty?

And how do you know his name is Leo?

I wish people would spell things out so the rest of us would not waste time trying to figure out what whatever version of the latest acronym is supposed to mean.
Law Enforcement Officer is not that hard to spell out.

[pipoman]

6. Dam..

U mst rlly hte txtg

leo is very common, surely you see regular use of acronyms in every forum on DU, hell on every forum on the net?

[shadowrider]

4. Off-Duty LEO's?

You mean the people that are charged with "protecting society" when in uniform and can therefore open carry, but once they clock out become "civilians" and are not to be trusted with their personal firearms in a conceal carry capacity? (According to some posters here). Those LEO's?

[Mugweed]

5. "LEOs" are not to be trusted...period

On or off duty.

[pipoman]

7. Unless of coarse you need one,

then I am sure you forget about your blanket mistrust and the police officer who responds to your emergency is your most trusted friend...

[safeinOhio]

8. Do you have a link to any post

like that? I've never seen one and have been here a while. Being overly dramatic does little for your arguments. Exaggerations are used by people, sometimes, to convince them self.
Just use the "New! Google search DU" on the top left to find post.

[shadowrider]

9. Yes I can link to posts like that

They're here but I won't embarrass or single out the individuals who feel that way and have posted such nonsense. If you peruse the forum, you'll find the posts.

[safeinOhio]

10. I follow the forum all the time and

have never seen a post that is against off duty police carrying. I would recommend that you spend less than a box of shells on a donation star so you'll be able to search our DU site. I'm not buying your "I won't embarrass or single out.." story.

[shadowrider]

11. Hang on then, lemme go find them

I ain't lyin.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. There is a Canadian here who thinks LEO's should have to turn in their guns when their shift ends.

[benEzra]

14. Only off-duty LEO's can *LEGALLY* carry in any place that serves alcohol in Ohio.

Anyone with violent intent is probably not someone who would be overly conscientious about obeying an unenforced "no guns allowed" sign or an obscure law.

Only LEO's can legally carry in Chicago and D.C., but it isn't LEO's (or legal gun owners, for that matter) that are responsible for those cities' murder rates.

[Euromutt]

12. It's a very odd story

It seems rather hard to believe that, if the plaintiff's allegations have any basis in reality, the alleged shooter got off with a $250 fine and a suspended 30-day jail sentence. You'd think that if the shooter were entirely at fault, even unintentionally, a felony charge like reckless endangerment would have been in order. The only way the criminal verdict makes sense is if Gibson shot Macklin in response to the latter getting aggressive first, in which case Macklin's complaint that the bar failed to "train employees to deal with violent situations" would be major chutzpah.

[safeinOhio]

13. Very odd

I tried to google the story with no luck. I guess my point in posting is, can you sue a business for not taking reasonable safety precautions. This is after the post about the 82 year old assaulted at Wal-Marts. As I responded in that post, you can sue for anything, winning is a different story. I think the court and jury will focus on "reasonable". It could be that the bar knew there were lots of fights and over drinking going on and did not try to curb any of it, or it could be just a crazy unforeseen incident.

Reminds me of the hot coffee suit against McDonalds years ago. First the person won millions and later it was overturned on appeal.

[Euromutt]

16. The McDonald's suit was a bit different, though

For starters, the McDonald's suit concerned a corporate practice that directly contributed to the tort, namely keeping the coffee at third-degree burn inducing temperature. It's one thing to sue the company for something it did that caused harm to you, and quite another to sue the company for failing to prevent another customer from doing harm to you. This situation is more like someone suing McDonald's because another customer maliciously ground a fresh, hot Big Mac into your face.

I'm a little unclear on the McDonald's coffee suit, or suits, as it is. There may have been several around the same time, and the woman who was the plaintiff in one of the suits (if there was more than one) also tried to sue her daughter, who was driving the car when the plaintiff spilled scalding hot coffee over herself (unsuccessfully, I hope). Still, the central claim had merit, namely that the coffee was dangerously hot.

[Ikonoklast]

18. Reduced on appeal.

Plaintiff ended up with $480K.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

[slackmaster]

15. Was the shooting victim a clown?

If so the shooter should get a reward.

[bluedigger]

17. The story is a little unclear.

Am I to interpret "more than $25,000" as "around $25,000", or "as much as he can get"? If he is just trying to recover losses resulting from the shooting, I view it as a harassment lawsuit best settled out of court and privately between the proprietor and the victim. If it is for the big payoff, then it may set a lot of onerous precedent for the bar industry, if found in the victim's favor.