Florida Law Firm’s Planned Suit Will Argue ‘Negligent Security’ by Jacksonville Landing

Jacksonville Landing Video Game Shooting Lawsuit

courtesy news4jax.com

Well that didn’t take long. Sunday’s shooting at a video game tournament held at the Jacksonville Landing is about to be the subject of its first lawsuit as a result of the event. As news4jax.com is reporting . . .

A Florida firm plans to file a lawsuit this week alleging that negligent security contributed to Sunday’s mass shooting at The Jacksonville Landing.

Morgan & Morgan attorneys Matt Morgan, Tim Moran and James Young declined to name who the defendants would be in the lawsuit, which is expected to be filed in the next few days.

Matt Morgan said his team is representing several victims in the mass shooting, including one who was shot multiple times.

As we reported yesterday, the Jacksonville Landing is a designated gun-free zone. The shooter murdered two people and injured eleven more before killing himself.

Gun rights supporters have long expressed the opinion that venues that bar the lawful carry of firearms should be held responsible when that prohibition results in injury or death.

“Business as usual on the security front will no longer be tolerated by Americans,” Morgan said. “We must demand more from business owners. It’s time for business owners and event organizers to step up their game.” …

Morgan said his firm has been contacted by victims after previous mass shootings but this is the first case they’ve decided to get involved in because they believe the attack was preventable.

The attorneys cited a previous shooting outside the Landing in January 2017 and more recent gunfire that actually sent a bullet through the window of their building across the street from the Landing as evidence that such a crime at the venue should have been foreseen.

We’ll be watching this one. So should you.

 

comments

  1. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

    The security was off duty cops – totally useless.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I spoke to some people involved and they said it was mixed. Some cops, but mostly security guards… i.e. the lowest bidder, armed with a radio (that they may know how to use).

      And let’s be honest: even a BTDT operator is not going to be able to stop someone from killing 4 people in a place like that unless he happens to be right next to him. Target-rich environment.

      1. avatar Lost Down South says:

        So how come with gun-free zones, those who don’t want guns employ people with guns to keep out the guns?

        If I haven’t said it enough…GUNS!

        Morning haiku:

        guns guns guns guns guns
        guns guns guns guns guns more guns
        guns guns guns guns guns

      2. avatar Ozzallos says:

        Say it with me: “Deterrent”

        In fact, let’s take our favorite whipping boys here on TTAG, the TSA. Haven’t had a terrorist incident over the US in nearly 17(?) years. Throwing the debate of job skill to the wind, there are two definite factors after that you can count on in that success: Luck and simply showing up. All Joe Terrorist has to do is have a doubt. Maybe I’ll get caught. Maybe I should choose a softer target.

        it’s the same here. You’re right. Crazy Joe probably could cap all four people before a suitable response could be assembled, but visible, armed security might have created that crucial doubt. maybe. There are no guarantees, but it’s better than nothing. Likewise, you can at least argue that there is now a chance that security would be in the right place at the right time versus…. nothing.

  2. avatar barnbwt says:

    Well, it DID contribute to the shooting. Isn’t holding gun free zones accountable for their gun-free-ness what we’ve wanted all along?

    The only reason the venue banned guns, was because it limited their liability. But that does not absolve them of their responsibility.

    Maybe if half-assed gun free zones aren’t as inexpensive as the prevailing law regime, we won’t see so many signs put up for the hell of it. Or so many packed venues shot up by psychopaths.

    1. avatar Infidel762X51 says:

      Exactly, if you prohibit me from defending myself than you have assumed liability for anything that may happen to me because of your prohibition.

  3. avatar frank speak says:

    a security checkpoint…much like you encounter at a ball park or concert would have been the way to go…obviously that was not the case…

    1. avatar Gman says:

      security theatre where the disarmed are corralled into a barrel to be shot.

    2. avatar D Y says:

      Or maybe, just maybe, a society where there are repercussions for being a scumbag instead of assuming criminals will follow laws.

      Also, perhaps some actual focus on mental illness?

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Sheesh… Americans are starting to argue that pedophiles shouldn’t be charged with a crime because they have a sickness they can’t control. I guess they are being educated by Californians, Hollywood and the Catholic Church.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Pedarasty was institutionalized by the Catholic Church in the 13th century at the Council of Avignon.

        2. avatar anonymoose says:

          Thanks, Feminism!

        3. avatar tmm says:

          @Southern Cross…you have been misinformed, the 13th century Council of Avignon (let alone any other council) did not have anything to do with pedarasty.

    3. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      The Reality:
      No check point will resolve this, without first completely evacuating all human life from the structure in question, screen every item that is large enough to house/hold a weapon or parts thereof. Once that is completed, there would need to be twenty-four-seven security screening in place of every item and person entering –including employee’s and owners; let’s not forget the human’s who are doing the screening. Who is screening them?

      Yeah, not going to work, look at the illustrious T.S.A. How is that working for you and yours?

      With regard to any particular ‘venues’ responsibility for any incident directly related to a Gun-Free-Zone –> Strike down Gun-Free-Zones, until then, you enter those zones at your own risk/peril. ‘I’ for one, could care less about the venues liability for my corpse; dead is dead.

      I simply do not enter.

      1. avatar Marty says:

        Yea, I agree with you about this particular venue, I wouldn’t enter either. But like I’ve previously mentioned, if I want to enter, I will…Armed. Nobody will ever know until shots are fired. I will protect myself and my loved ones, all signs be damned.

  4. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Good.

  5. avatar Gman says:

    Just another gun free zone success story for the left to hail for new restrictions. Nothing changes. And why don’t we have national reciprocity yet?

    1. avatar RMS1911 says:

      We have had national reciprocity since 1791 but the rest of you let the politicians convince you otherwise.

  6. avatar L says:

    “…venues that bar the lawful carry of firearms should be held responsible when that prohibition results in injury or death.”

    Yes. YES. About 1 in 13 Floridians have a carry license. It shouldn’t be hard for the law firm to find a witness who holds a carry license that can attest in court “Well I would’ve been carrying that day if it weren’t for the gun-free zone policy.” Businesses that don’t allow you to defend yourself but don’t provide security need to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      They try to hold gun makers and sellers liable for shootings. As if they created an actual unsafe environment through corporate policy and refused to spend money on armed security like an auto manufacture decides not to spend on a life saving recall.

  7. avatar M9 says:

    How a law that requires ANY gun free zone to have metal detectors and screening, just like airports? That way we can be assured no one gets attacked! (sarc)

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      That would not be the goal. The effort is to get businesses to stop creating kill zones. Either provide armed guards or let us carry our tools of self preservation.

      It’s much cheaper to let people provide their own security than it is to hire a bunch of armed guards/police/security. That applies not just to a local business, but the entire country.

  8. Sue away !!! “$$$$$$$$💰 CHA-CHING 💰$$$$$$$$ !!!!”

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I hope they don’t settle. I rather not get any money than not to set an example. A lot of people just settle for the cash instead of making their point through a ruling.

  9. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “A Florida firm plans to file a lawsuit this week alleging that negligent security contributed to Sunday’s shooting at The Jacksonville Landing.”

    Because it was a shooting gallery aka Gun Free Zone,End Gun Free Zones Now.

  10. avatar bobo says:

    But, but but but the signs should have WORKED!!!!!!

    It said “Gun free zone!” its all the shooters fault for not OBEYING!

    I blame the sign for not leaping off the wall and stopping this man!

    1. avatar L says:

      I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or if you’re an actual liberal…

      1. avatar General Zod says:

        A liberal would never say something was the shooter’s fault.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Correct Leftards believe no one is ever at fault,only society and tools,except automobiles in the case of driving under the influence,remember they also believe in a utopia heated and cooled by unicorn pharts.

  11. avatar Saw it coming says:

    Anyone with half a brain should have seen this coming. My local news has been showing a couple who were there and the wife sprained her ankle.
    (Quote – “One of the MANY injured escaping this mass shooting”)

    I knew by the way they were talking that would be suing over her broken ankle and both now have “temporary” PTSD. They both said that events like this should have TSA like screening and the kicker?
    ALL GUNS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!

    Take away their Xbox and you’ll see real PTSD.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Just ban males, then all the world’s problems would be fixed. She don’t need a man anyway, she can stand on her own two feet.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        …she can stand on her own two feet.

        No, she can’t. Did you miss the part where she sprained her ankle?

        🙂

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          That’s why it’s called a joke.

  12. avatar Sian says:

    Interesting, Morgan&Morgan is pretty left-leaning so it’s telling they decided to take this one. They must sense that this one will pay out.

    It seems reasonable to have the same sort of security and bag checks that are present at poker tournaments. VG tournaments carry a lot of similarities, especially as the prize purses go up.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Some events do have checks. For instance, one event checked bags for bombs because there was a threat made in a country where someone could easily get explosive weapons. However, there still isn’t armed guards. Even if you check bags and people, someone can still walk in shooting like what happened at Sandy Hook. The only way to stop a shooter is to kill them. The other stuff is for show in an effort to make people, who are not so willing, leave weapons at home or in their car.

  13. avatar Nanashi says:

    Gun free zones need to be added to get woke, go broke. For once I wish the ambulance chasers* at Morgan and Morgan luck.

    *they literally ran ads telling people to filing a lawsuit should be their new years resolution.

  14. avatar AlanInFL says:

    It is “I support pot legalization, chase ambulances, big time Democratic lover, and don’t give a shit about the people I couldn’t win the general election for governor” jerk.

    I forgot to mention about being an attention whore that he and his firm are in reality.

    I hope he loses this case.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      If he loses, you lose.

  15. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    This is going to be interesting.

    The gun-ban crowd is looking at this as ‘Yeah! They should have been checking for guns because those things are icky!”

    The gun-rights crowd is looking at this as “Yeah! You said we couldn’t defend ourselves so now you’re going to be held responsible for disarming us!”

    Fascinating that the same issue can be viewed from two very, very different points of view.

    And this is going to be the most interesting part: “..because they believe the attack was preventable.”

    Are they going to argue that we should be allowed to be armed? Or are they going to argue that all guns should be removed?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Are they going to argue that we should be allowed to be armed? Or are they going to argue that all guns should be removed?

      I would argue both: Allow people to take responsibility for themselves or you must do it for them.

      It’s fine to have certain rules on your private property, but you should also be responsible for the rules you make. If you don’t want to be held responsible don’t go around creating situations.

      If I feel there is a fire hazard, I will bring a fire extinguisher just in case. You tell me that I can’t bring my extinguisher inside, that you will take care of any danger and that I don’t have to worry I am safe. Then a fire erupts because of your dereliction and people are hurt. You should get in trouble.

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    … alleging that negligent security contributed to Sunday’s mass shooting …

    Well, if the venue prohibited people from being able to defend themselves and did NOTHING to provide for their security, I agree that the venue contributed to the injuries.

    The attorneys cited … evidence [at The Landing] that such a crime at the venue should have been foreseen.

    How about this for evidence that violent crime should have been foreseen: something like half of all people in the U.S. will be victims of violent crime in their lifetimes. With such a high rate of victimization, the relevant question is “when/where”, not “if”.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      …and mass shootings are very likely to occur in a “gun free zone.”

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      If they didn’t think it was likely for people to be shot in their venue, there would have been no point in trying to keep guns out of there, right?

      Therefore by instituting a gun free policy, they were acknowledging the danger, while preventing customers from protecting themselves from that danger, and apparently while failing to provide protection to those who were denied self-protection.

      Yep, I’d say it makes a lot more sense to sue the venue than to sue, for example, anybody protected under PLCAA, even if the PLCAA didn’t exist.

  17. avatar m. says:

    ahs want to prevent self-defense measures, they get to pick up the bill

  18. avatar Mr Lizard says:

    For all the gun grabbers, expect zero regulatory change. It’s election season and your entire team is going to utter the words “measured approach” “thoughtful legislation” and “needs further study”. So just go ahead and stay home this November and let the adults sort things out.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Ain’t no stopping the machine:

  19. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    EA has very deep pockets….

  20. avatar Sheep dog says:

    They’re not going to argue for ccw at these events, don’t be obtuse.
    The law firm will say there wasn’t enough metal detectors, pat downs, and paramilitary goons standing around with m-4’s slung over their shoulder. “Citizen step over here for your cavity search” all I wanted to do is watch a live NFL game.
    I hope they loose!
    Remember what were fighting for, legal ccw everywhere (except court houses) that or nothing.

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    John Morgan, the firm’s founder, was a Hillary Clinton suckass and now seems content to become the biggest ambulance chaser in the Southeast.

    1. avatar Roger says:

      He was a big 0bama guy. He allegedly is so disgusted with politics, or the Democrat party, he has stopped giving the DNC money. He is a very wealthy man that many speculated he would run for Governor.

  22. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Awesome…I have been posting that if you make a gun-fee zone then you should be responsible for enforcing it…
    a few lawsuits like this and those signs will come down…or they will get serious about security…

    1. avatar KBonLI says:

      That’s what I’m thinking. If they win it will signal that if you have a “gun free zone” sign then it will cost a LOT of money to protect the venue. They may not be fighting for CC but the end result is no sign no law suit.

    2. avatar mark1955 says:

      Wrong!…This isn’t “Awesome” in the least!

      The reason this was Staged ( There was no actual “shooting” ) was to Try and create a phony pre-text to file a negligent security lawsuit, that is supposed to spread like wild fire and scare all other public venues into installing TSA style security or they will be like wise sued.

      The government wants to Try and use all public venues as virtual concentration camps ( Particularly hospitals as stated in 1969 by the Rockefeller foundation ) and getting invasive TSA style security installed is the first step in that direction.

      Get ready for the coming False Flags against American Hospitals in the near future to make the same pitch.

  23. avatar Sneaky White 13 says:

    GFZ venue owners will only get their heads out of their collective ass when their insurance companies jack up their liability rates to painful levels to pay off ambulance-chasing lawyers.

    Then the GFZ owners have a plethora of options; such as paying for competent security OR they end the GFZ insanity and allow for the patrons to exercise their God-given right to self defence or not.

    Also, what about the crappy reporting the murdering turd got his pistol legally? If he was committed to a mental institution, then he lied to obtain the weapon, especially in the socialist utopia of Maryland? And he concealed the weapon..looks like he was a felon from the start, imagine that…

    My advice; AVOID GFZs unless absolutely necessary.

  24. avatar mark1955 says:

    There was No Shooting!

    Entirely Staged farce to Try and make the case for TSA style security in all public spaces to avoid liabilty and to try and get more Gun Control. This lawsuit was pre-planned.

    This is the Globalist new tactic to enslave us with TSA style security. File lawsuits to force venues all over the country to pre-emptively install TSA security at their venues, so they will not be sued in case anything happens in the future.

    Fully expect this tactic to be employed against Hospitals in the near future, after Staged false flags at hospitals, as the NWO through the Rockefeller Foundation in 1969, said they wanted to make hospitals virtual prison’s, by installing security from the perimeter of hospital property’s inward to interior public spaces of hospitals.

    Does anyone actually believe for one second, that this alleged “Shooter” was actually allowed to purchase a Handgun in the liberal paradise of Maryland with all of their stringent requirements and with his back ground.

    Also, once again, even though that venue is ringed with HD video surveillance, somehow we do not get to see video evidence of the alleged “shooting”…Because there wasn’t a “shooting”!

    1. avatar Bruce Clark says:

      Right now the only thing TSA has done for me is made it easier for me to never get on a plane or go to an airport again. If that kind of draconian security ever brackets down to entering restaurants or other venues, then I won’t go there either. People Don’t have to put up with it, all you have to do is have the balls to refuse to do that activity. Best thing I ever did was started driving for vacations etc. If I can’t drive there, I don’t go there. I consider the trip to and from the destination 70% of the fun anyway. Slow down, you can actually see something from a car or RV on the road. Between from where you start, and where you end up, there’s a whole lot of interesting things to see and do.

  25. avatar Cameron says:

    This sucks. What most people are going to take away from this is not that gun free zones are dangerous, but that thier safety is someone else’s responsibility.

    1. avatar Bruce Clark says:

      Gun free zones are safe as long as you’re honest and law abiding. It won’t work if you’re a psychopathic criminal. But even a criminal with an IQ of sub 70 can read well enough to take advantage of the situation. Besides, who cares about gun free zones in Florida, It’s not an arrestable offense unless when detected you refuse to leave those premises when asked to do so. But as I always say, “If you’re concealing right, who’s ever going to know”? I regularly enter gun free zones in Florida armed, including gun shows. I’ve never been detected. If you’re asked to leave just leave. It’s a no brainer as far as I’m concerned. Why do I do so, because I consider it my RIGHT to do so. Whereas a concealed carry permit is a method of the State teaching it’s population it is a privilege like a Drivers License. Fuck the State, if the carry permit wasn’t so cheap, I wouldn’t even have one. Does it say somewhere in the 2nd amendment you can’t carry a gun concealed? Didn’t think so.

  26. avatar raptor jesus says:

    hold gun free zones accountable

    1. avatar Bruce Clark says:

      Accountable to what? It’s the RIGHT of the ownership of the venue to do so. Saying they are somehow accountable for what happened is the same as claiming a place that allows Gun’s on its premises is accountable if nothing happens in their place of business. These are psychos committing these crimes. The only ones accountable are those that commit the crimes. If the authorities would enforce the gun laws already on the books, 90% of this SHIT would never happen. And people need to get over their hypersensitivity about gun death in this country. Because out of 325 million people in this country even the highly padded statistics of 8 to 10 thousand preventable gun deaths per year (minus the suicides) is a infinitesimal amount. And if you subtract the gang on gang gun deaths it isn’t even a whole percentage point. In other words, SHIT happens folks.

  27. avatar Steve Day says:

    Apparently the place also had all of their fire exits locked so people could not escape.

    1. avatar Bruce Clark says:

      As a former Fire inspector that is totally illegal. I question your sources on that information. I can’t believe that.

  28. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    Who else are the “bottom feeders” going to blame to insure a big fat paycheck? They’ll split up the liability among all the principle parties involved. The city, the venue, the organizers, etc. Any money the victims should get will be whittled down with the majority going to the lawyers like it always does.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email