I think a better argument here is that common law/case law here is ambiguous enough to create a situation where there's an unreasonable and unpredictable risk for certain kinds of businesses.
Another problematic case this sort of liability leads to is hotels in Las Vegas routinely searching guest rooms after a lawsuit following the 2017 shooting. I don't think it's desirable to expect hotels to search rooms or to call the police if someone has "too much" luggage. That's paranoid, an invasion of privacy, and unlikely to prevent a future mass murder.
I don't want a world where I have to submit to searches to go anywhere or do anything, and I hope that's not a fringe position.
I was only responding to GP's statement that common law can be overridden by statute.
If I wanted to respond to the idea that premises liability should be eliminated then I would have responded to your first post.
And I actually do think that most people would call your position a fringe position once you actually start talking details like "but what about guns in schools?" If you truly believe that you shouldn't have to submit to a search to go ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING then you hold a fringe position.
My position is that it is undesirable for premises liability to lead to an increase in private businesses searching their guests, not that nobody should be searched anywhere for any reason. I do think it should be rare in practice: airports, probably; concerts, probably not absent some unusual threat; hotel rooms pretty much never.
It appears routinely searching students in public schools is fairly rare in the USA; under 8% use metal detectors[0]. That certainly does not mean they're allowed to bring guns, just that they probably won't be discovered if they do.
No, your position is: "I think it would be a good idea to create an explicit carve out in the law saying that there is no premise liability for a property owner or event organizer due to a third party committing a crime." and "I don't want a world where I have to submit to searches to go anywhere or do anything."
This means that nobody should be searched when they go anywhere or do anything, and if they aren't and someone gets shot by a third party, stabbed by a third party, or mugged by a third party then there is no liability to the business/landowner in any case. Ever. Searches will not be rare in practice, they will not occur. Airports? Never. Concerts? Never. Hotel rooms? Never. Schools? Never.
And hence we've already established the problem with your position and why it's fringe. Not even you can realistically argue for your own positions without caveats. This is a great example of a motte and bailey fallacy.
I see the miscommunication now. It's possible to interpret what I wrote as "no places/activities should require searches", but what I meant was "not all places/activities should require searches". That's a bit hyperbolic of course since the resources don't exist to search everyone, everywhere, all the time. There has been an increase in recent years, and I would like it reversed.
I am opposed to premises liability being a motivation for anyone to conduct searches. Liability isn't the reason searches are conducted at airports or courthouses to give a couple examples, so eliminating it would not eliminate those searches. Businesses also might have other motivations, such as making their customers feel safer; if that outweighs customers finding it annoying or offensive, some of those would likely continue.
> someone gets shot by a third party, stabbed by a third party, or mugged by a third party then there is no liability to the business/landowner in any case. Ever.
I will concede the technical point: there is a body of law that sometimes expects business owners to prevent crimes and sometimes doesn't, with a whole lot of ambiguity about exactly what any given owner is actually expected to do. I think that ambiguity should be reduced by putting criminal acts out of scope.
