EDITORIAL : DON'T REWARD ROBBERS LIABILITY SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE IN STORE HOLDUPS.

WHEN a robber sticks a gun in a shopkeeper's face and cleans out the till, it's an abomination.

Obviously, society wants fewer stick-ups, not more.

Yet, gun-toting crooks might be encouraged if California courts decide that store employees must fully cooperate with robbers - giving up the cash without hesitation and generally making a criminal's day as trouble-free as possible - lest the store be liable for paying personal-injury damages to shoppers who claim they were traumatized by the employees' inadequate response to the crime.

Incredibly, there is a chance that the law will shift in that direction, depending on the outcome of several cases now working their way through California courts. And if the law does change, armed robbers will have more incentives to commit crimes - practically a written guarantee that crime pays.

Showing its good sense, the state Supreme Court ruled this month that a fast-food restaurant could not be held liable when an employee briefly hesitated before cooperating with an armed robber, thus endangering a customer who was being held at gunpoint. But the court's decision was very close (a 4-3 vote) and focused only on one narrow issue, ignoring all other questions such as a store's obligation to train employees how to act in an emergency or a store's liability to protect shoppers in situations beyond its control.

On those other points, there's no telling what the Supreme Court and other courts will finally decide. But it certainly isn't in the best interests of society to make it easier for store owners and employees to be named as defendants in injury lawsuits after being victims of a crime. The robber, not the victim, is guilty.

Frankly, it wouldn't be too surprising if merchants' liability burden was expanded in this regard, if only due to the litigious nature of so many people these days. But it still would be a mistake. Besides motivating criminals to commit crimes, it could lead to more abuses by personal-injury plaintiffs. (Those who stage auto collisions to commit insurance fraud might switch to a new scam - having their cohorts pose as shoppers in a store at the moment it's robbed, then suing the owner.)

State Sen. Ross Johnson, R-Irvine, has introduced legislation (SB 82) to make it clear that business proprietors and employees do not have a duty to comply with a criminal's demands, even if the criminal threatens to harm someone. Something generally along those lines makes sense, and we hope other members of the Legislature will add their own suggestions to build a comprehensive solution to this problem.

Whatever the final shape of the legislation, the state ought to reaffirm the principle that crime doesn't pay.