Negligent or Inadequate Security
Bodden and Bennett Law Group is a Florida-based law firm which covers and practices negligent security cases within the United States. With the ambiguous nature of the legal profession, it is important to understand what negligent security is and how it can be proven.
The basis for hiring security on premises is very simple. There is an ethical adage that what happens under someone’s watch is their responsibility. It is important to understand what negligent security cases cover. Typically, these cases emerge when a crime has occurred on a property, and the victim seeks to hold the owner of the property liable for potential negligence that leads to injury. Often, negligent security attorneys will cover situations such as robbery, rape, assault and battery or murder. The point, after all, of hiring security is to ensure that these acts do not occur on the premises of a facility.
Many negligent security firms will point out that there is an important criterion upon which negligent security attorneys are able to gauge whether responsibility can be determined. The clear first criterion is to prove injury on the property of a specific owner. For example, if an assault occurs on the property of a business’ floor, it is likely that a negligent security attorney will be able to prove this portion of the criterion.
The second and more ambiguous criterion is proving that the owner did not act with reasonable care. This criterion is often subjective and consequently makes it more difficult for negligent security firms to be able to win cases if it is not provable. Our negligent security attorneys have covered a variety of cases and often can see when this action occurs. A common example that is given is a poorly lit parking lot. A man may sign up for a spot in this parking lot but does not know about the poor lighting around it or criminals who surround the area. Due to the negligence of the owner for not providing reasonable lighting, he has attracted violent criminals to the area. The violent criminal may commit battery, or even rob or assault the man due to the negligence of the owner.
There are other criterion which are important to proving the “reasonable care” portion of this statute. The defendant or owner being sued must have a legal responsibility to provide adequate levels of security for their property. For example, poor lighting can often be deemed by a violation by negligent security attorneys because there is a rise in the probability of a crime occurring because no one can monitor or see what is going on around them. The defendant must also have probably not provided said security for their property. For example, many apartment buildings maintain significant lock systems or buzz systems which prevent non-owners into the building. Such security measures would not violate negligent security because they have a legal responsibility to care for their tenants, and have taken measures to do so. The final part of proving failure to provide reasonable care is linking the failure for security provisions to the injury. For example, if the parking lot owner provided lighting, might the gentleman walking to his car have anticipated the oncoming crime? It certainly seems that criminals would be more likely to strike elsewhere.