TexasCHLforum.com

I'm alittle confused or just not reading this right. I drive a company vehicle which I am the primary driver and I have a CHL and do carry. So are you saying that I cannot legally carry while driving the company vehicle? Sorry in advance if I am missing the point.

Texascrewser wrote:I'm alittle confused or just not reading this right. I drive a company vehicle which I am the primary driver and I have a CHL and do carry. So are you saying that I cannot legally carry while driving the company vehicle? Sorry in advance if I am missing the point.

This would depend on your company's policies. I am not allowed to carry at work or while using company property (a vehicle).

ok again I say that negligent entrustment take a lot of eveidence, the company JF works for must have either alot of bad drivers or they have a weak law team.

The key allegation that must be proven in such a case can be described as follows:
A plaintiff who invokes that doctrine must present evidence which creates a factual issue whether the owner knew, or had reasonable cause to know, that he was entrusting his car to an unfit driver likely to cause injury to others. Furthermore, in order to impose liability upon the owner, the plaintiff must prove that the negligent entrustment of the motor vehicle to the tortfeasor was a proximate cause of the accident


Negligent entrustment claims arise when an unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver causes damages while driving a motor vehicle owned by someone else. A party injured by such a driver must generally prove five components of this tort: (1) that the owner entrusted the vehicle to the driver; (2) that the driver was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; (3) that the owner knew or should have known that the driver was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless; (4) that the driver was negligent in the operation of the vehicle; and (5) that the driver's Negligence resulted in damages (Amaya v. Potter, 94 S.W.3d 856 [Tex. App. 2002]).

both of these are from different sites, seem to agree. they prove my first statement, you must be able to prove by preponderance of evidence that the company did not practice due dilligence. an CHL in the vehicle of a company car is in no way able to be proved to that point. the mere possession of a weapon is not a pattern and does not make a company culpable in a negligence case. so he has been cowed by the weak compnay law team to just buckle.

ORIGINAL POSTER, MORE INPUT..

i forgot a small detail.

the person driving the car that has the gun is NOT CHL. they have the gun in the car for the trip out of town. If it were CHL its really a non-issue for me, they have CHL, they have gun, cop doesnt care..

but them driving a car and has a gun in the car for the road trip and gets stopped.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Jmra, you have no idea how many times I've been sued for negligent entrustment. In fact, the latest set of papers arrived certified mail on Friday. Yeah, I haven't lost many, but I have had to defend and there are quite a few we decided were more cost effective to settle. If a business can sidestep that circus by instituting a simple policy of no firearm in company vehicles, well frankly it is a no brainer.

I apologize if my question is too personal but I have to ask what kind of business you own that has been on the bd end of so many law suites. I have owned a business for twelve years and was the primary in a previous business for 25 years and we were only involved in one case and it had nothing to do with negligent entrustment. That is crazy! I hope you have some good insurance and I would hate to pay the premiums on it.

I'll respond via PM. To put it in perspective, our total insurances costs are roughly $2.5 million.

Ericstac wrote:ORIGINAL POSTER, MORE INPUT..

i forgot a small detail.

the person driving the car that has the gun is NOT CHL. they have the gun in the car for the trip out of town. If it were CHL its really a non-issue for me, they have CHL, they have gun, cop doesnt care..

but them driving a car and has a gun in the car for the road trip and gets stopped.

This is not illegal. See PC 46.02:

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

ok again I say that negligent entrustment take a lot of eveidence, the company JF works for must have either alot of bad drivers or they have a weak law team.

Everything you wrote sounds good in theory .... But it ain't real world.

Put it this way, we've got some of the top experts on the country, literally nationally renowned, that assist our risk management efforts. Even though we are one of the safest companies in our field, there is no low to which a scum-sucking bottom dweller will not go if they think they can smell deep enough pockets.

Ericstac wrote:ORIGINAL POSTER, MORE INPUT..

i forgot a small detail.

the person driving the car that has the gun is NOT CHL. they have the gun in the car for the trip out of town. If it were CHL its really a non-issue for me, they have CHL, they have gun, cop doesnt care..

but them driving a car and has a gun in the car for the road trip and gets stopped.

A lot of the answers talk about civil liability. It sounds like that's not your worry if it's a non-issue for CHL.

It sounds like your worry is criminal charges. Even if it's your gun, I don't think you broke any law, assuming
(a) it's not a machine gun, sawed off shotgun, or other prohibited weapon,
(b) your employee is not a felon or other prohibited person,
(c) your employee is not a minor, and
(d) your employee was not intoxicated when you gave them the car with a gun in it.

IANAL