The Colorado State Supreme Court will consider whether property owners can be held responsible for mass shootings that happen on their land in a decision that could have a significant impact on victims and businesses throughout the state.

At issue is whether Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood is liable in the mass shooting that happened at its Colorado Springs clinic in 2015, and whether a jury should consider claims that Planned Parenthood knew the risk of an attack and could have prevented the shooting by taking security precautions.

The state supreme court’s decision could impact whether victims of future mass shootings can seek compensation from the businesses where they were attacked — something that has been consistently denied in past Colorado mass shootings such as the 2012 Aurora theater shooting in which 12 people died. An Arapahoe County jury in that case determined that Cinemark was not liable.

The case has drawn the attention of several trade and business associations, and has raised some concern that businesses could face increased costs for security and insurance in the future, depending on the supreme court’s decision.

In court on Tuesday, attorney John Roche argued for Planned Parenthood that the blame for the attack lies solely with confessed shooter Robert Dear, who authorities believe killed three people and wounded nine others during the November 2015 shooting.

But attorney Ron Wilcox, representing victims of the shooting, argued that the case should go to a jury — rather than being decided by a judge, as this case was — because there was ample evidence that Planned Parenthood was aware of the potential for attacks on its properties and that it failed to provide enough security.

Roche said other mass shootings have shown that locations with security measures, even military bases, have failed to deter determined shooters, and that any measures Planned Parenthood might have added, like a fence or a full-time security guard, would not have stopped the attack.

“Some criminal behavior, like the type of fanatical rampage at issue here, simply cannot be deterred by reasonable security measures,” he said.

But Wilcox argued that Planned Parenthood knew their facilities faced the risk of violence — a medical director had received death threats, staff were given active shooter training, and the organization offered to buy bulletproof vests for doctors. A part-time, armed security guard was stationed at the Colorado Springs clinic. He typically left at 11 a.m.; the shooting happened around 11:30 a.m.

If the guard had still been there, or if other security measures were in place, Planned Parenthood could have at least mitigated the injuries suffered by those at the site, Wilcox said, and a jury should decide to what degree Planned Parenthood is to blame.

“There were known measures that could have been taken that could have prevented the attack,” he said.

The supreme court justices questioned both attorneys about whether the court should create a hard-and-fast rule for all mass shooting situations. Planned Parenthood’s argument, they said, seemed to imply premises could never be held liable for mass shootings, while Wilcox’s argument seemed to open a door for endless claims that some additional security could have stopped violence.

“Do all these places have to be built like fortresses?” asked Justice William Hood.

Several organizations who are not directly involved in the case filed statements with the court in support of one position or another, including American Tort Reform Association and Coloradans Protecting Patient Access.

The supreme court should rule in favor of Planned Parenthood and overturn an appeals court decision, said attorney Julian Ellis, who represents the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado Civil Justice League, which filed a statement with the court in support of Planned Parenthood.

“If the majority’s decision stands, Colorado landowners and businesses will incur increased operating costs, including new security measures to try to stop mass shootings, litigation costs when the heightened security measures inevitably fail to stop an armed maniac whose sole intent is to kill, and increased insurance costs because of the litigation and liability risks,” he wrote in the brief.

That liability could put an undue burden on property owners, Ellis said, even though such claims would still be vetted by a jury.

But attorney Ralph Ogden, who filed a statement on behalf of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, said the decision on liability should be made solely by a jury.

“In a shooting case like this, Planned Parenthood is entitled to argue to the jury that the shooter was, to use their words, the predominant cause or the overwhelming cause, and that the jury should put all the responsibility on the shooter,” he said. “It’s a jury argument, and not a question of law for the court.”