NEGLIGENT SECURITY LAWYERS Palm Beach

Palm Beach Gardens, West Palm Beach and South Florida

Negligent security, or inadequate premises security litigation, stems out of premises liability law. A landowner or business has a duty to keep its premises safe and secure for its tenants/ customers (think of a supermarket’s duty to keep its floor dry to prevent slip and falls). Using this same logic, a landowner or business has a duty to secure its premises if it is reasonably foreseeable that a crime would occur.

Examples:

• A nightclub or bar has a duty to have adequate security to prevent fights and violence.
• A landlord has a duty to employ proper security to ensure that its tenants are not at risk of robbery, rape, or murder.
• A hotel has a duty to have adequate security to prevent foreseeable crime against its customers.
• A business has a duty to secure its premises and prevent any foreseeable violent attack against its patrons.  

Negligent security cases employ the same underlying law as premises liability cases – particularly the concepts of “duty” and “foreseeability.” First, a duty must exist to keep the premises safe and secure for customers and/or tenants. The nature and extent of that duty will generally depend on the nature of the premises, the foreseeable criminal activity on or near the premises, and the relationship of the parties.

Significant Florida cases dealing with negligent security include:

• A landlord has a duty to protect an invitee from a criminal attack that is reasonably foreseeable. Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County, 534 So.2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
• In general, a landowner breaches the duty to use reasonable care by failing to make diligent searches or inspections at reasonable intervals for dangerous conditions that might be created by invitees or third parties. Boatwright v. Sunlight Foods, 592 So.2d 261 (Fla.3d DCA 1992).
• A landowner has two basic duties: reasonable care to maintain the premises in reasonably safe condition, and to give warning of concealed perils which are or should be known and which are unknown to invitee. See Williams v. Madden, 588 So.2d 41 (Fla.1 DCA 1991).
• In fulfilling its duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, a landowner must conduct inspections appropriate for the premises involved.” Yuniter v. A & A Edgewater of Florida, Inc., 707 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
• A retailer’s general standard of care may include an obligation to protect a customer from a known ongoing attack. Butala v. Automated Petroleum and Energy Company, 656 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
• As a matter of law, a landlord of an apartment complex is obliged to protect its tenants from reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. L.K. v. Water’s Edge Ass’n, 532 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
• The duty of care owed by a landowner to invitee with respect to protection from criminal acts is dependent upon foreseeability of such acts. Admiral’s Port Condominium Ass’n. v. Feldman, 426 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Accord: Medina v. 187th Street Apartments, 405 So.2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
• Standard of care in providing security will vary according to particular circumstances and location of the premises Orlando Executive Park v. P.D.R., 402 So.2d 442 (5th DCA 1981).

If you want to determine if you or a loved one has a potential negligent security case, Make A Call For Justice and contact our West Palm Beach premises liability attorneys today for a free consultation at 561-630-5363.