|
RISKVUE ARCHIVE | FEATURE STORIES
Premises Security Liability:
How Crime Can Take A Bite Out Of You
Business owners’ and landlords’ premises liability risks have greatly expanded in the last 15 years or so. It’s not just slip-and-fall claims anymore...you also can be held liable for the criminal acts of others that occur on your property.
The Legal Theory Behind Premises Liability
Tort law says that business owners and landlords have a duty to protect patrons and tenants against unreasonable risk of physical harm. In the past, most premises liability cases involved a dangerous physical condition of the property that led to an injury, such as a slippery floor or loose stair board.
But courts have begun to hold businesses accountable for injuries that they can reasonably foresee, regardless of how they occur. Today, anyone who opens their premises to the public for business purposes is also liable for harm caused by the accidental, negligent or intentionally harmful acts of third persons.
Who Is At Risk?
Apartment buildings, hotels/motels and retail establishments are the most common targets of civil suits in security-related premises liability cases. However, you cannot be held liable for a crime unless you’ve breached the duty to protect and that breach becomes the “proximate cause” of an injury.
How To Avoid Premises Security Claims
To avoid liability for criminal accidents on your property, you must take measures to prevent “foreseeable” incidents. Courts have determined injuries to be foreseeable if a prior similar incident occurred or if the “totality of circumstances—including the crime rate in the surrounding area, past complaints about security, and whether the business owner knew of any similar incidents”—indicate you should have anticipate the injury.
Practical steps you can take to reduce your risks include:
- Determine whether you operate in a high-crime area. If so, you’ll have to take greater precautions than a business in a low-crime area.
- Investigate any criminal incidents occurring on or near your premises. What factors contributed to the crime? Late hours of operation? Lax security?
- Look at your physical surroundings. Do they invite criminal activity? Consider lighting levels, security of entrances/exits, alarms and other security devices. If they’re inadequate, the investment you make in improving them may save you thousands of dollars by preventing liability claims and lost time, and by improving employees’ sense of security and morale.
- Train employees how to prevent and deal with criminal activity.
- Make sure you have adequate insurance coverage. Your commercial general liability policy covers you for premises liability suits brought by third parties. However, some premises security suits involve million-dollar settlements—you may want to consider buying umbrella coverage to boost the limits of your CGL.
|
How Far Does Your Liability For Premises Security Extend?
|
|
Do you have to comply with a robber’s demands to protect customers’ safety? No, said the California Supreme Court in Kentucky Fried Chicken of California v. Superior Court (Brown). In this case, Kathy Brown sued Kentucky Fried Chicken for medical treatment, lost earnings and emotional distress, saying that a clerk’s stalling actions during a holdup led her to believe she would be shot. But the court ruled that merchants have no duty to comply with an armed robber’s demands to protect the safety of store patrons. Justice Marvin Baxter, writing for the majority, said that imposing such a duty on shopkeepers would be “contrary to public policy as it would encourage similar unlawful conduct” by other would-be stickup artists.
However, the issue may reappear in another state. Justice Joyce Kennard, writing for the minority, said the majority incorrectly framed the issue as that of a merchant’s duty to patrons rather than whether the clerk’s actions were negligent. In the latter context, Kennard wrote, a jury could determine whether the clerk’s response to the situation was reasonable under the circumstances. “Having determined that business proprietors must act reasonably to protect their customers from harm caused by third parties, this court should leave for the jury the determination of whether the conduct of KFC and its employees in this particular instance conforms to that standard,” Kennard wrote.
|
riskVue | The webzine for risk management professionals
October 2000
|
Browse This Month's Articles
Useful Web Tools
ISSUE ARCHIVE
Issue-by-Issue Article Index
Topical Index
MORE RESOURCES
Industry Event Calendar
Risk Manager’s Guide to All 50 States
FREE OFFERS
Get riskVue's free monthly e-mail
Download our White Paper, "How To Choose and Use a Risk Management Consultant"
ABOUT RISKVUE
Learn more about riskVue
Call for Authors
Advertise
Get riskVue Banners
Privacy Policy Legal Notices Site Map |