BJ's is more wise than the CDC or the Governor.

[black dog]

Some people definitely would. Sign doesn't wave your liability and there are always people looking to make a buck from suing you.

You missed the words "Treaspass and you open the gate" even in Maryland it changes things.

 

[Clem72]

You missed the words "Treaspass and you open the gate" even in Maryland it changes things.

No, I didn't. If the person is trespassing but has a reasonable reason for being there (like checking a utility, serving a warrant, etc.) or the person is otherwise incapable of being able to understand the danger (a child, mentally incompetent, cant read), then you are not legally shielded from liability.

Further, in most States, if you are aware of and willfully ignore a situation where a trespasser can come to serious bodily harm, and have an expectation that trespassers may be present, then you can be held liable. So someone breaking into your house and being bitten by the dog would be no fault. But if you have a dog on your porch that is known to bite and you post a sign (meaning you expect people to trespass), then you may well be held liable. Again, depends on the state.

Plus some people just like to file lawsuits whether they have a good case or not.

But whatever, I am not a lawyer (IANAL), but my googler works.

 

[black dog]

No, I didn't. If the person is trespassing but has a reasonable reason for being there (like checking a utility, serving a warrant, etc.) or the person is otherwise incapable of being able to understand the danger (a child, mentally incompetent, cant read), then you are not legally shielded from liability.

Further, in most States, if you are aware of and willfully ignore a situation where a trespasser can come to serious bodily harm, and have an expectation that trespassers may be present, then you can be held liable. So someone breaking into your house and being bitten by the dog would be no fault. But if you have a dog on your porch that is known to bite and you post a sign (meaning you expect people to trespass), then you may well be held liable. Again, depends on the state.

Plus some people just like to file lawsuits whether they have a good case or not.

But whatever, I am not a lawyer (IANAL), but my googler works.

The never ending moving goalpost. lol
I have lived with one a long time.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Yes, local management makes a huge difference with how stores are run.
Like the 3 Walmarts near me, two have over 2 mil a year in theft and the other under a half mill, guess what store trespasses and follows through with having shoplifting and the court system?

Having a manager whose name ends in a vowel also can help.

 

[stgislander]

Wife was in BJ's yesterday and confirmed that masks were still required.

 

[jrt_ms1995]

Stores do not have the right to refuse service in many instances. "Sorry, gay person, you can't shop here." "Sorry, no black people allowed." That's against the law. So no, stores do not have the right to discriminate.

Yes, they do have that right (regardless of how stupid such restrictions would be for business), but are forced to comply with illegal laws enacted by overreaching governments and enforced by their complicit judiciaries.