Around 2 a.m., the shooter, who was clearly armed to the teeth, walked right past a Pulse Nightclub security guard. Then, instead of taking action, the guard immediately dove under cover. Furthermore, there are indications that the shooter drove past the nightclub several times immediately before the incident, a pattern that should have aroused a security team’s suspicions.

In situations like this, law enforcement and the criminal justice system deal with offenders. But these efforts do not help the victims of these shootings. That’s where a Tampa inadequate security attorney steps in. These individuals need and deserve financial compensation for everything they have been through. If property owners were even partially responsible, these owners must live up to their legal obligations.

Establishing Liability

These responsibilities kick in if the owner had a legal duty to protect the victim, a property hazard caused injury, and the owner knew about the inadequate security or other issue. The good news is that, in many cases, these elements are relatively easy to establish in court. The bad news is that these claims often have foreseeability issues. More on that below.

As for legal duty, Florida law divides victims into three categories, primarily based on their relationship with the owner:

• Invitee (permission to be on the land and benefit to the owner),
• Licensee (permission but no benefit), and
• Trespasser (no permission and no benefit).

Nightclub patrons are invitees, even if they do not spend any money at the club. Vendors and salespeople are invitees as well, since their visits have a commercial purpose. In these situations, the owner typically has a duty of reasonable care. This responsibility is roughly based on the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) which American schoolchildren once had to memorize.

The duty of care is lower in licensee cases, since the relationship is more distant. Usually, a licensee is someone like a motorist who cuts across a parking lot on the way to work. The responsibility level is even lower in trespasser cases.

Once a Hillsborough County judge determines if a legal duty applied, a jury must determine if a property hazard, such as negligent security, caused injury, and the owner knew about that hazard.

In ye olden days, property owners were not legally responsible for criminal acts, like shootings. Today, however, the law protects victims in these situations. Lawyers often play “what if” in these instances. For example, if the security had been tighter at Pulse Nightclub, the tragedy might have happened anyway. Then again, it might not have happened.

Knowledge of the hazard can be direct or indirect. Direct evidence of actual knowledge could include a security review which highlights some flaws. Circumstantial evidence of constructive knowledge (should have known) includes prior security incidents which should have prompted the owner to beef up security.

Foreseeability Issues

Roughly these same principles also apply to foreseeability, a legal concept which basically means “likely.”

As mentioned, property owners could be responsible for a third party’s criminal act, if that act was foreseeable. Evidence of foreseeability includes the nature of the business (i.e. is it a nightclub or a tea room), the neighborhood’s status as a “high crime” area, and prior similar incidents in the area.

Usually, the victim/plaintiff must prove foreseeability by a preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not. That’s one of the lowest standards of proof in Florida law.

Connect with a Diligent Hillsborough County Lawyer

Injury victims are usually entitled to significant compensation. For a free consultation with an experienced personal injury attorney in Tampa, contact Mark H. Wright, PLLC. We do not charge upfront legal fees in these matters.

Resource:

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57615637

Officers from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office arrived at the scene late one night. According to witnesses, someone fired shots which hit the driver of a car, who then apparently lost control of the vehicle.

The man was dead in the vehicle, and no arrests have been made.

Negligent Security Issues

In most cases, landlords are legally responsible for injuries which happen on their property, even if a third party, like a random shooter, was involved. This responsibility usually includes compensation for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering.

A Tampa personal injury attorney can obtain this compensation if the landlord had a legal duty, and the landlord knew about the hazard which substantially caused the injury. In a shooting case, victim/plaintiffs need not prove who pulled the trigger. They must simply establish that the injury happened on the premises.

Apartment tenants, hotel guests, and other paying patrons are invitees in Florida. These individuals have permission to be on the property and their presence benefits the owner. Therefore, the owner has a duty of reasonable care to keep the property safe for them. That’s one of the highest responsibility levels in Florida law.

Some people, such as children who cut across parking lots on their way to school, are licensees. They have implied permission to be on the property, but their presence isn’t beneficial to the owner. A handful of victims are trespassers. There is no permission and no benefit.

The nature of the property often determines the duty of care. For example, an apartment complex near a rowdy bar or a busy street probably needs more intense security than a complex in a “safer” area.

Moreover, the landlord must have actual or constructive knowledge (should have known) about the relevant property hazard. In the negligent security context, such hazards include:

• Non-working cameras,
• Burned-out lights,
• Gaps in fences, and
• Inadequate live security.

Foreseeability is sometimes an issue as well. Prior security incidents at that location, or a nearby location, are highly relevant in this inquiry.

Areas of Responsibility

Landlords are usually fully responsible for security in private common areas, such as laundry rooms, parking lots, and fitness rooms. Landlords have slightly less responsibility for security in individual apartments or hotel rooms. The landlord doesn’t have exclusive control of these areas. Landlords generally have no legal responsibility for public streets or parks which are adjacent to the property.

A similar issue often comes up in outdoor injuries, like a sidewalk fall, at a mini-mall or grocery store. Usually, store owners are responsible for conditions in the parking and walking area immediately in front of their establishments. That’s why store owners can put displays on walkways. Generally, the mini-mall landlord is responsible for common areas further away from individual stores, like the parking lot.

Typically, premises liability claims settle out of court. This settlement often occurs during mediation. A third-party mediator works with both sides to forge a settlement agreement. This process usually requires both parties to compromise on some key points.

Count on a Dedicated Hillsborough County Lawyer

Landlords are usually responsible for shootings and other injuries which occur in common areas. For a free consultation with an experienced Tampa inadequate security lawyer, contact Mark H. Wright, PLLC. We routinely handle matters throughout the Tampa Bay area.

Resource:

tampabay.com/news/crime/2021/05/31/man-found-shot-dead-in-riverview-apartment-complex/

The 29-year-old man faces first-degree murder charges in the slaying of a man at an apartment complex on Park Springs Circle. Prior to his arrest, the suspect tried to hide in Polk County around Crystal Lake. He was arrested there without incident.

The suspect was on probation for a murder in New York at the time of the Plant City shooting.

Legal Responsibility

It is very difficult for survivors to carry on following a tragedy like a wrongful death. Quite frankly, these people need money to pay funeral and burial expenses, replace lost family income, and pay the decedent’s final medical bills.

Fortunately, a Tampa personal injury attorney can obtain the compensation these families need. As outlined below, the property owner is often legally responsible for apartment complex shootings and other injuries related to negligent security matters. Furthermore, particularly in premises liability matters, legal actions usually convince landowners to be more protective of the people who visit their property.

In terms of legal responsibility, Florida law divides victims into three categories, primarily depending on their relationship, if any, with the landowner.

• Invitee: Most apartment shooting victims are invitees. These individuals have permission to be on the land and their presence benefits the owner. Since the relationship is close, the duty of care is high.
• Licensee: These individuals have permission to be on the land, but their presence does not benefit the owner. A guest of an apartment tenant is usually a licensee. Since the relationship is more distant, owners must only warn licensees about latent (hidden) defects.
• Trespassers: These individuals have no permission to be on the land, and there is no benefit. So, in most cases, there is no duty. A few loopholes, like the attractive nuisance doctrine, protect some child trespassers.

Theoretical responsibility alone is insufficient. To obtain compensation, victim/plaintiffs must also establish actual responsibility.

Establishing Liability

Knowledge and foreseeability are the two basic actual responsibility elements. Frequently, these elements overlap.

Landowners are responsible for injury if they knew, or should have known, about the defect which caused harm. Direct evidence of actual knowledge includes things like reports which show inadequate security. Circumstantial evidence of constructive knowledge (should have known) usually involves the time-notice rule. The longer the hazard existed, the more likely it is that the owner should have known about it.

Examples of negligent security include burned out lights, nonworking cameras, propped-open security doors, and an unarmed “courtesy patrol” when stronger measures are needed.

Victim/plaintiffs must also establish foreseeability. In this context, “foreseeable” basically means “possible.” Evidence of foreseeability includes prior similar incidents on premises, the area’s status as a “high crime” area, the location of the premises, and prior similar incidents in the area.

Victim/plaintiffs must establish knowledge and foreseeability by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).

Connect with an Experienced Attorney

Landowners are often responsible for accidental injuries which occur on their properties. For a free consultation with an experienced Tampa inadequate security attorney, contact Mark H. Wright, PLLC. We routinely handle matters in Hillsborough County and nearby jurisdictions.

Resource:

tampabay.com/news/breaking-news/2020/11/11/man-arrested-in-shooting-death-of-woman-outside-plant-city-apartment/

The case highlights the issue of premises liability, or liability to landowners for injuries that occur on their property due to conditions of the property or other circumstances (such as inadequate security). However, each year, a number of these injuries occur on non-government-owned property, which means that this $300,000 limit on what victims can recover does not apply. Below, we discuss some of the common questions that come up in these types of lawsuits:

Is The Plaintiff an Invitee, Invited/Uninvited Licensee, Or Trespasser?

The first question involves determining whether the injured plaintiff was an invitee (business or public), invited or uninvited licensee, or trespasser, with invitees and invited licensees receiving the most protection and uninvited licensees and trespassers the least. This determines the applicable standard of care owed to the plaintiff. In a nutshell, if a business expressly invites or reasonably implies an invitation, an individual who comes onto that property is an invitee (for example, a customer or student). If the individual is there for their own convenience without an express or implied invitation, they are often considered to be an uninvited licensee.  A social guest is an example of an invited licensee, while someone who goes into a store to get change for themselves, for example, would likely be considered to be an uninvited licensee.

Duties Owed by Owner

When it comes to duties owed to invitees and invited licensees, owners must maintain the premises in a “reasonably safe condition” based on the purposes for which they are made available. This includes warning of any dangers which are “known or should be known” to the owner.

Landlords have been held to have far less of a duty to licensees: they must simply not harm or expose them to danger recklessly, “willfully or wantonly.” Similarly, an owner’s duty towards a trespasser is to simply not inflict “willful or wanton injury” onto them.

Foreseeability: Where Florida Courts Disagree

While criminal acts are by nature typically unforeseeable, if they are reasonably foreseeable given the particular circumstances of what happened in a case (for example, a store that has been violently robbed many times), a duty may be found to exist between the business owner and an invitee in terms of protecting that invitee from foreseeable criminal attacks by third parties. They also depend upon whether the business owner took ordinary or reasonable care to prevent criminal conduct. Florida law dictates that convenience businesses, for example, must be equipped with certain security devices and meet specific standards when it comes to crime prevention.

However, plaintiffs who are assaulted or otherwise injured due to third party crimes on business property can sometimes turn the existence of these security devices around to argue that a business owner had the security devices because they knew that crime was likely to occur on the premises, and, had they done more, the plaintiff would not have been harmed. However, this may not be enough to demonstrate foreseeability; a stronger case would be made, for example, if a notorious crime occurred right next door, or previously at that specific property, and the owner hadn’t taken any reasonable precautions to protect customers.

That being said, Florida courts disagree as to what makes a crime foreseeable: Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court’s summary judgment and found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether plaintiff’s subsequent attacks were foreseeable and whether the defendant business had a duty to prevent them, which it failed to do. At the same time, the Third District Court of Appeal has put forth a rigorous requirement concerning the geographical and temporal proximity of prior crimes, as well as their similarities to the current crime at hand, in order for a plaintiff to prove foreseeability.

Contact Us If You Have Any Questions or Concerns About Being Attacked On Business, Public, Or Social Property in Florida

If you have any questions or concerns about injuries or other harm incurred on business or other property, contact Tampa inadequate security lawyer Mark H. Wright today to find out how we can help you figure out if you have a viable claim for recovery.

Resources:

4dca.org/content/download/593130/opinion/183699_1709_01152020_08584242_i.pdf

miami.cbslocal.com/2020/09/25/florida-supreme-court-parkland-shooting-families/

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/when-inadequate-security-measures-not-only-lead-to-assault-but-additional-harm-later-in-life/

We have, for far too long, underestimated the impact that failing to properly protect children has on them; not only in that moment; but for the rest of their lives. According to new research, abuse and neglect of kids through their mid-teens is linked to a higher rate of hospitalizations later on in life, the most common cause of that hospitalization being drugs, mental illness, and/or physical injuries. The study emphasizes the importance of protecting children in order to prevent ongoing health problems later in life, such as ensuring that there are adequate security measures in place in schools in order to prevent incidents that could lead to depression and other threats to their mental health for the rest of their lives.

The Duty of Care That Schools Owe Students

When you are a student on a campus, you are owed a minimum level of safety, including from third parties that have the potential to attack you. School administrators owe a duty of care to students, and must do everything reasonably possible to protect them from foreseeable death, harm, and injury. This includes repairing any “dangerous conditions” in a “timely manner,” which arguably covers inoperable security cameras in stairwells on school grounds. A court would likely rule that fixing an existing security camera is a reasonable precaution, especially given that stairwells are not usually monitored by teachers or security guards, leaving the cameras the only form of security available protecting students there.

What About Parental Liability?

In some instances, victims can also sue a minor’s parents in response to incidents like these (when the minor is still under the age of majority, or 18 in Florida for civil matters). Florida law dictates that courts have jurisdiction to order a child’s parents or guardian to render community service if it finds that they failed to make “a diligent and good faith effort to prevent the child from engaging in delinquent acts.” In addition, the court can order the parents to be responsible for any restitution ordered against the child. Victims can also try to use Florida’s laws on negligence and legal theories of vicarious liability to argue that they should be able to recover against an assailant’s parents.

Contact A Florida Negligence & Injury Lawyer

If you or a loved one has experienced harm or injury in Florida due to negligent or inadequate security measures, contact Tampa Bay inadequate security attorney Mark H. Wright to discuss your rights and options.

Resources:

psychcentral.com/news/2020/07/15/abuse-neglect-as-kids-linked-to-more-hospitalizations-later-in-life/158053.html

nj.com/middlesex/2020/07/school-negligence-led-to-students-sexual-assault-in-stairwell-lawsuit-says.html

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/florida-court-decides-that-parents-of-parkland-school-shooting-victims-can-sue-security-guard-for-negligence/

While the guard argued that Florida state law shields he and other agents, employees, or officers of the state from personal liability unless they acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting “wanton and willful disregard for human rights, safety, or property,” the appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that the complaint sufficiently alleges that the guard demonstrated the required wanton and willful disregard for the safety of individuals. In addition, both courts found that, as a matter of law, he is not entitled to the sovereign immunity provided by the law. The case will next go before a jury to decide whether the guard’s actions (or lack thereof) were ultimately negligent (or wanton and willful under Florida law).

What Happened?

Instead of shutting down the school, the guard reportedly radioed a colleague, indicating that he saw a “suspicious subject” even though he had previously described the shooter as the type of person who would eventually one day “come to this school and shoot [it] up.” As a result, the complaint specifically alleges that the guard breached his duty owed to the victims by failing to call a Code Red, advise that the shooter was a threat, and exercise reasonable care in fulfilling his duties to protect those on campus by following those policies and procedures put in place to prevent the risk of harm and injuries that can occur during a shooting. As a result, the complaint alleges that the guard is not entitled to sovereign immunity under Florida law because he acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard for human rights, safety, or property.

What Constitutes Wanton & Willful Negligence for A School Security Guard Under Florida Law

The Fourth District previously defined the term “wanton” as demonstrating a “conscious and intentional indifference to consequences with the knowledge that damage is likely to be done to persons or property,” while “willful” refers to “intentionally, knowingly, and purposely.” As a result, both the trial and appellate courts had to effectively decide whether the guard acted knowingly and purposely, with conscious and intentional indifference to the consequences, and with the knowledge that damage would be done. In deciding that he did, the court discusses the guard’s reasons for failing to call in the Code Red, noting that they were “strictly personal to himself” because he did not want to be responsible for potentially calling police to the school for what could turn out to be a false alarm.

If You Have Any Questions or Concerns About Negligence, Contact an Experienced Florida Personal Injury Attorney

If you have any questions about whether you can hold an individual responsible for harm that occurred to you or your loved ones, it is always best to discuss your concerns with an injury attorney to find out what your options are. Tampa inadequate security attorney Mark Wright has more than three decades of experience litigating all types of negligence claims like these, and the knowledge and dedication necessary to ensure that you are compensated for any harm that you and your family suffered. Contact our office today to find out more.

Resource:

law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/07/01/parents-of-parkland-school-shooting-victim-can-sue-security-guard-for-negligence-florida-court-rules/