HTRN wrote:No, they're not liable. It's been explained a dozen different times here, corporations are not responsible for criminal acts by third parties, but they would be for anything that was permitted under corporate policies by third parties on their property or by agents in their employ. You assume responsibility for your own safety by walking through the door. Don't like it? Don't go in.
You are correct.
However, this is based on case law where corporations are not asking anything more than abiding by US and local laws. As I said, Suzanna Gratia had no case against Luby's because Luby's had nothing to do with a criminal act.
I think it would be smarter from a liability standpoint for the corporation to be silent, since dictating actions that are otherwise legal require responsibilities on the part of the corporation.
Let's take the thought experiment further. Let's say a restaurant decides to offer meals "roman style" with bare feet and toga for patrons. To maintain the "theme" patrons must remove their shoes. Many of us feel that shoes are useful for a number of reasons and wouldn't remove them otherwise.
A "crazed prankster" scatters shards of broken glass in the restaurant and a number of patrons suffer cut feet. Security video shows that the broken glass is the fault of the "crazed prankster" - a criminal act that the restaurant had no control over.
However, since the restaurant was asking patrons to remove the one piece of kit that is perfectly legal, and could be argued would have prevented them from injury, wouldn't the restaurant have a higher duty to spend more manpower to keep the floor cleaned?