Proving Negligence Of Business To Prove The Case
People often think that the legal costs in a case are the biggest hurdle in their pursuit of justice. However, that’s not completely true. Most lawyers are now providing their services on contingency fee basis. What this means is that you pay lawyer’s fee only when the legal pro has successfully won the settlement for you.
If you win nothing the legal counsel gets nothing. The most difficult part of any case is to prove it. When you sue someone for negligence and want a financial award. The business would mostly try to prove that there was no negligence and that the case is not valid.
This happens quite often when people have to fight their cases against big companies and businesses. Because they have money and thus they can afford the best legal teams to defend them. They would try their best to prove that there was no negligence on their part. That the damages done to the victim were unavoidable in any circumstances.
This is a common thing that happens when patrons get hurt within business premises by the assault of a third party. In this scenario the business is required to fulfill its responsibility of having ample security for the customers.
The Negligent Security Cases.
When businesses fail to provide the needed security to their customers its said that they showed negligence toward security measures. A business that has the public coming within its premises has to provide security to its customers. If it is within the knowledge of the business that crimes can occur it becomes a responsibility for business to protect its patrons.
When this business does not provide the needed security and a criminal activity results. One that causes harm the patron or causing damage to his property the business will become held liable. The important thing to look into in cases of negligent security, such as when a gang banger shoots up a club or a disco. Then there is the foreseeability of the crime. In other words, was there a history, or knowledge that gang-bangers have caused trouble in the area.
From foreseeability we mean that it was in the knowledge of the business (the runners of the business) that a crime can take place.
What is the Stance of Defense Counsel?
Attorneys for the defense will almost always argue they had no knowledge of any potential problem. They will come up with a litany of excuses to avoid paying for the injuries of victims at their bar, nightclub, or regular old corporate offices. (Learn more.) But courts will look for whether or not a duty’s owed. A duty was then breached if it was or was not foreseeable and someone is hurt due to the crime of another. One taking place while you were hanging out at my business, for example. If those basic things are present in the case, then the jury instructions will provide the framework to the trier of fact. As to whether or not, based upon the totality of the circumstances defendant(s) are/is liable as follows:
“Series 1000 – Premises Liability
- 1000. Premises Liability—Essential Factual Elements
- 1001. Basic Duty of Care
- 1002. Extent of Control Over Premises Area
- 1003. Unsafe Conditions
- 1004. Obviously Unsafe Conditions
- 1005. Business Proprietor’s Liability for the Negligent/Intentional/Criminal Conduct of Others
- 1006. Landlord’s Duty
- 1007. Sidewalk Abutting Property
- 1008. Liability for Adjacent Altered Sidewalk—Essential Factual Elements
- 1009A. Liability to Employees of Independent Contractors for Unsafe Concealed Conditions
- 1009B. Liability to Employees of Independent Contractors for Unsafe Conditions—Retained Control
- 1009C. Reserved for Future Use
- 1009D. Liability to Employees of Independent Contractors for Unsafe Conditions—Defective Equipment
- 1010. Affirmative Defense—Recreation Immunity (Civ. Code, § 846)
- 1011. Constructive Notice Regarding Dangerous Conditions on Property
- 1012. Knowledge of Employee Imputed to Owner
- 1013–1099. Reserved for Future Use
- VF-1000. Premises Liability—Comparative Negligence of Others Not at Issue
- VF-1001. Premises Liability—Affirmative Defense—Recreation Immunity
- VF-1002. Premises Liability—Comparative Fault of Plaintiff at Issue
- VF-1003–VF-1099. Reserved for Future Use”
What’s The Foreseeability Of Crime Test?
Whether the victim will win in a case where a third party committed a crime against you, while you were visiting the premises of the defendant. This is majorly dependent on proving foreseeability of a crime in such cases. This is the threshold you must meet, or the court could dismiss your case with, or without prejudice to you re-filing the case.
So naturally, a true personal injury warrior will note that this is a very important element. One to become nailed down before you consider moving forward with your lawsuit. From foreseeability we mean that it was in the knowledge of the business (the runners of the business). That a crime can take place.
Businesses and Crime.
In some cases, it’s implied that the business should have been aware of the fact that a crime could take place within the premises. Constructive knowledge is the term that indicates such knowledge. It is to become assessed in these cases what had been happening around the business in the past.
Any crime that took place in the past that gave an indication that a crime might take place is enough reason for a business to take security measures.
How recently a crime had taken place in the vicinity of the business where the victim has suffered harm. This is also of importance in deciding the foreseeability of the crime. If the incident that has harmed the claiming victim in the case was similar to ones that had taken place in the past in the proximity of the business.
It would be said that the business should have foreseen similar scenarios in future. Now, here is another important factor that comes into discussion when proving the foreseeability of a crime in a case. The similarity between the incidents that took place in the past and the one that injured the plaintiff.
Knowledge of the Crime
How recently a crime had taken place in the vicinity of the business where the victim has suffered harm. This is also of importance in deciding the foreseeability of the crime. If the incident that has harmed the claiming victim in the case was similar to ones that had taken place in the past in the proximity of the business. It would be said that the business should have foreseen similar scenarios in future.
Now, here is another important factor that comes into discussion when proving the foreseeability of a crime in a case. The similarity between the incidents that took place in the past and the one that injured the plaintiff.
Similarity Of Cases And Foreseeability
This is quite a debate topic and has been a controversy in many court cases as well. Different state judges are of different opinions in this particular scenario. Some judges believe that only natural and similar crimes allow a business to foresee an upcoming danger.
According to them a business will only become held responsible for security negligence if it did not succeed in taking security measures. Despite the fact that many similar cases had taken place in the proximity of the business in recent times.
If in the past a robbery had taken place in the nearby store. It will not instantly prove security negligence from the business if a battery incident takes place on its premises. In order to prove the foreseeability of the crime. That event had to be similar in nature.
This theory is not accepted by all courts. Some decisions of cases given that contradict this theory of similar of incidents. There are courts that have given decision in the favor of the victim even when the incidents were not similar.
The Stance Of The Plaintiff In Security Negligence Case.
From above information we can easily conclude that any victim who wants to prove that business’ security negligent. Then caused damages to him has to come up with ample evidence to prove that the business knew or should have known about the possibility of the crime.
The plaintiff will have to collect information about past cases in which a crime had taken place in the vicinity of the business. It is always best that the plaintiff collect information about cases that are closely similar to the incident that has caused him/her injuries.
Information about crimes that were not similar to the recent incident that has resulted in harm to the victim. This should also be collected it is because the courts will not always look at the similarity of the cases. But will also bear in mind the fact that any crime in the vicinity of the business should have urged the business to take security measures to protect its patrons.
Security Negligence Cases In Los Angeles.
Los Angeles is one of the most populous regions in the US. Crimes are taking place in this area every minute. If you have been part of an incident where you suffered harm or your property got damaged when you were in a business’ premises. You should contact an experienced law firm as soon as possible. Ehline Law Firm is one of the most reliable law firms for the citizens of L.A. They have some of the most seasoned and passionate lawyers on the roster. They focus on helping victims with their personal injury cases.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Foreseeability The Free Dictionary Foreseeability legal definition of Foreseeability
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/foreseeability-term.html Foreseeability | Nolo’s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions