Do Threatened Businesses and Institutions Have Heightened Legal Obligations to Provide Security?

[rangerrebew]

Do Threatened Businesses and Institutions Have Heightened Legal Obligations to Provide Security?
This case involved a Colorado Springs abortion clinic, but it could equally apply to synagogues, bookstores selling books with Mohammed cartoons, animal research facilities, etc.

Eugene Volokh |The Volokh Conspiracy | 8.22.2020 8:02 AM

From the four-Justice majority opinion (written by Justice Richard Gabriel, joined by Chief Justice Nathan Coats and Justices William Hood and Carlos Samour) in Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood v. Wagner, decided by the Colorado Supreme Court in June; the case arose from a shooting that killed three (including one inside the building) and injured nine at a Colorado Springs abortion clinic:

    Here, the plaintiffs introduced substantial evidence showing that PPRM [Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains] knew for many years that there was a risk of violence against its facilities. In fact, PPRM warned all new physicians that "there is an inherent risk associated with working [at PPRM]," and it provided them with training on how to protect themselves. PPRM even offered to provide all of these physicians with custom-fitted bulletproof vests, free of charge.

https://reason.com/2020/08/22/do-threatened-businesses-and-institutions-have-heightened-legal-obligations-to-provide-security/

[PeteS in CA]

If I understand the decision correctly, it means PP was denied a summary judgment and the case will be tried. I have less than zero sympathy for PP, but absent evidence that this PP knew of a very specific threat and did absolutely nothing for even minimal security, I don't think I as a juror could vote in favor of the plaintiffs. I don't think a "not quite enough" argument should be sufficient.