A Pennsylvania facility owes no general duty to protect its visitors from the criminal acts of strangers. But a facility that affirmatively disarms a lawfully licensed invitee — screening him at the door, forbidding him the firearm the Commonwealth licensed him to carry, and substituting its own control for his self-defense — has undertaken the management of his safety on ground it controls. And an undertaking must be performed with reasonable care.
The article traces that duty from Feld v. Merriam through Kerns v. Methodist Hospital, and examines when mandatory disarmament may trigger the Third Circuit’s state-created-danger doctrine against a government facility.
Author
Have a question about how this applies to your situation?
Email us at info@goldsteinlp.com for more information.
This article provides general information about Pennsylvania law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and apply differently to particular facts; consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.