When visiting a business, shopping at a mall, or even staying at a hotel, the last thing most people think about is their safety. We trust that property owners have taken all the necessary steps to keep us safe. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Sometimes, a person can suffer an injury or become the victim of a crime because a property owner failed to provide adequate security. In Pennsylvania, this type of situation can lead to what is known as a negligent security claim. Negligent security cases fall under premises liability law, which means that a property owner has a duty to ensure that their premises are reasonably safe for visitors. When a property owner does not provide adequate security measures and someone gets hurt as a result, they may be held responsible. Proving negligent security in a personal injury case, however, can be challenging, but with the right approach, it is possible to establish that the property owner was at fault. At, McDonald At Law , we are here to guide you through the legal process and help you navigate the complexities of your case.
What Is Negligent Security?
Negligent security occurs when a property owner fails to take appropriate precautions to protect visitors from harm. This could involve not having enough security personnel, not installing proper lighting, failing to fix broken locks, or not using security cameras. In some cases, negligent security can even extend to the failure to warn visitors about potential dangers on the premises.
For example, if a shopping mall has a history of robberies or assaults, but the property owner fails to inform visitors or hire more security staff, they may be considered negligent if someone is injured as a result. Another example could be a parking garage that is poorly lit, making it easier for criminals to hide and target unsuspecting individuals.
Understanding Duty of Care in Negligent Security Cases
In order to prove negligent security in a Pennsylvania personal injury case, it is important to understand the concept of duty of care. Property owners have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to keep their premises safe for visitors. This means they need to regularly inspect their property, address any potential dangers, and implement security measures that are appropriate for the location and type of business.
“Highly Recommended” is the epitome of an understatement when it comes to the firm of McDonald At Law!! Michael McDonald’s genuine pleasant, and empathetic demeanor masks his legal astuteness, and the level of aggressiveness he implements in pursuit of a victim’s right and the monetary compensation legally entitled to us. I was involved in a motor vehicle accident at the hands of an intoxicated driver in York County. In my case I suffered what I described as an atypical injury, Mr. McDonald offered to be my Lawyer immediately after explaining to him the events leading to and after being struck in turn causing me to have a heart attack, when another law firm seemed hesitant. McDonald At Law secured a sizable monetary compensation that not only met my expectation but exceeded it. Mr. McDonald’s wealth of experience, and legal prowess is priceless and never did he act as the case was beneath his practice. In the end my family and I were well compensated, but also felt justified. Thank you McDonald At Law!!- Miguel Lopez
For instance, a hotel in a high-crime area may need to install surveillance cameras, hire security guards, and ensure that all entry points are secure. On the other hand, a small retail store in a low-crime area may only need to ensure that its doors and windows are locked at night.
If a property owner fails to meet this duty of care and someone is harmed as a result, they may be held liable for negligent security. However, it is not enough to simply show that an injury occurred on the property. You must also prove that the property owner knew or should have known about the potential dangers and did not take the necessary steps to prevent harm.
Establishing the Elements of Negligent Security
To prove negligent security in a personal injury case, certain elements must be established. These elements include the following: that the property owner had a duty to provide adequate security, that they breached this duty, that the breach led to an injury, and that the injury resulted in damages.
Putting off an Attorney due to Cost Choosing a Personal Injury AttorneyRelated Videos
The first step is showing that the property owner had a duty to provide security. This duty is based on the relationship between the property owner and the visitor. For instance, business owners owe a duty of care to their customers, while landlords owe a duty of care to their tenants. In some cases, even social hosts may owe a duty of care to their guests.
Next, it must be shown that the property owner breached this duty. This involves proving that the property owner did not take reasonable steps to protect visitors. For example, if there had been prior criminal activity in the area and the property owner did not install security cameras or hire security personnel, this could be seen as a breach of duty.
Once a breach has been established, the next step is showing that the breach directly led to an injury. For instance, if someone is assaulted in a poorly lit parking lot, and it is found that the property owner knew about the poor lighting but did nothing to fix it, this could establish a link between the breach of duty and the injury.
Finally, it must be shown that the injury resulted in damages. Damages can include medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. In negligent security cases, the damages will often depend on the severity of the injury and the long-term impact it has on the victim’s life.
Evidence Needed to Prove Negligent Security
Gathering evidence is crucial in proving negligent security in a personal injury case. The more evidence you have, the stronger your case will be. One of the most important pieces of evidence is proof that the property owner was aware of the potential danger. This could include records of prior incidents, such as police reports or complaints from other visitors. If there has been a history of criminal activity at the location, this can help show that the property owner knew or should have known about the risks.
Verdicts & Settlements
Security camera footage can also be valuable evidence. If the property owner failed to install cameras or if the cameras were not working properly, this can be used to demonstrate that security measures were inadequate. Additionally, witness statements from people who were present at the time of the incident can help establish the facts of the case.
In some instances, hiring professionals who can assess the security measures in place at the time of the incident may also be useful. They can provide an evaluation of whether the security measures were reasonable and if the property owner failed to meet industry standards. Their testimony can help demonstrate that the property owner should have done more to prevent the injury.
Challenges in Proving Negligent Security
While it is possible to prove negligent security, these cases can be complex. Property owners often argue that they took reasonable steps to ensure safety or that the incident was unforeseeable. For example, if a crime happens unexpectedly in an area with little to no history of similar events, the property owner may claim that they could not have predicted the danger.
Another challenge may arise if the injured party’s actions are called into question. The property owner might argue that the victim was not paying attention to their surroundings or that they acted recklessly, contributing to their own injury. These types of defenses can make it harder to prove that the property owner was solely responsible.
Overcoming these challenges requires a thorough investigation and strong evidence. Gathering all relevant documentation, such as police reports, medical records, and security footage, can help build a solid case. Additionally, having witnesses who can testify to the conditions of the property and any prior incidents can strengthen the argument that the property owner was negligent.
How Pennsylvania Law Affects Negligent Security Cases
Pennsylvania law plays a significant role in determining the outcome of negligent security cases. In Pennsylvania, the courts follow the legal principle of comparative negligence. This means that if the injured party is found to be partially responsible for their own injury, their compensation may be reduced.
For instance, if a person was attacked in a poorly lit area but it is found that they ignored warnings about the location or did not take reasonable precautions, their compensation could be reduced based on their percentage of fault. If they are found to be more than 50 percent responsible, they may not be able to recover any compensation at all.
Understanding the specific laws that apply to negligent security cases in Pennsylvania is important when pursuing a claim. Working with a legal professional who is knowledgeable in this area of law can help ensure that all relevant factors are considered and that the best possible outcome is achieved.
Proving negligent security in Pennsylvania personal injury cases requires a detailed understanding of premises liability law and the ability to gather strong evidence. While these cases can be complex, it is possible to hold property owners accountable when they fail to provide adequate security. Establishing that the property owner breached their duty of care and showing that this breach directly led to an injury are key steps in building a successful case.
If you or someone you know has been injured due to negligent security, you should not have to face this challenge alone. The team at McDonald At Law is here to help. With a commitment to justice and a thorough understanding of the law, we will work tirelessly to ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the compensation you deserve. Contact McDonald At Law today to schedule a consultation and take the first step towards getting the legal support you need.