The college in Virginia just paid out 4 million; they had a no gun policy. That should be a start for a good case law.
Jurors returned the verdict Wednesday in a wrongful death civil suit brought by the parents of two students who were killed on April 16, 2007.
Might be interesting to see what the judge said about this one.
Mall was responsible for customers safety
Houge sued the mall owner for negligent security. The company argued that the fault lay with the contract security officers who responded inappropriately. The jury found in favor of Houge and awarded her $40,000 in damages. The mall owner appealed. The Mississippi Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, determining that the mall owner could not delegate its liability to a contract security company.
Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Supreme Court of Louisiana, 752 So.2d 762 (1999)
Posecai was robbed of $19,000 worth of jewelry in a Sam's parking lot which, although near a high-crime area, had only had three predatory offenses in the six and a half years before the robbery, only one of which had been similar to the robbery in question. Does a store owner owe a duty to protect customers from the criminal acts of third parties under these circumstances? Held No, using a balancing test between store owner and customer, there was a low foreseeability that the crime would occur and its gravity was slight.
Here we have two business with different court decisions. The bottom line is how good is the lawyer.
Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd., 650 So.2d 712 (La.1994) Plaintiff was raped in her apartment and sued management company for failure to provide for safety of residents. Should fault be allocated between the rapist and the management company? Held No, just to the management company, because 1) the failure to provide safety encompassed the rape, 2) comparison as public policy would reduce incentives for providing safety, and 3) intentional and unintentional torts cannot be compared.
The below from a Premises Liability Law Firm web page.
An owners’ legal duty to provide safe premises for their patrons, renters and guests includes a duty to protect them against harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties when those criminal acts are foreseeable. Criminal acts are foreseeable when their occurrence can reasonably be expected under the circumstances.
Negligent security cases often involve violent criminal attacks such as rape, assault and battery, murder, robbery and more recently, terrorism. These cases have been successfully concluded against owners/operators of businesses including: shopping centers, banks, bars, hotels, restaurants, schools and universities, airlines, parking lots, condominium and apartment buildings, homeowners' associations, event promoters, night clubs, strip clubs, video arcades, bowling alleys, private security companies, daycare facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, and office buildings.
