Latest Blogs

If you have been injured by a third party on someone else’s property — for example, if you were punched or stabbed by an attacker in the parking lot of a restaurant or store — then Florida law may entitle you to sue the property owner and recover damages on the basis of inadequate security.

How does an inadequate security claim work?  Let’s take a look.

The Basics of an Inadequate Security Claim

In Florida, if the defendant has actual or constructive control of the premises on which you are injured (due to the conduct of a third party), you may pursue a claim against the defendant owner/operator on the basis of negligent or inadequate security.  When the defendant controls the premises, they owe a duty to visitors to ensure that such visitors are not exposed to a foreseeable risk of harm.

Consider the following example.

Suppose that you are violently mugged in the parking lot of a department store (the department store owns and operates the parking lot).  The neighborhood in which the department store is located is quite dangerous and just recently saw a string of violent muggings quite similar to your own.  If the department store’s failure to provide adequate security resulted in the mugging, then pursuant to Florida law, you would most likely be able to sue the department store and potentially recover for your injuries.

In order to succeed in any inadequate/negligent security case, you must show that the harm you suffered at the hands of a third party was foreseeable.  In assessing the foreseeability of harm in the Florida inadequate security context, the court must determine whether the defendant property owner/operator was actually aware of the risk of harm, or should have been aware of the risk of harm.  The court must complete their assessment of foreseeability on the basis of two factors:

• Whether similar acts by third parties had occurred in the same physical area, and
• Whether said acts were close in time to the third-party act that resulted in your injuries.

Let’s return to our previous example (involving the department store parking lot mugging), with an eye for assessing the foreseeability of harm in the inadequate security context.

In the department store example, let’s imagine that the department store understaffed its security.  As a result, there was not adequate security presence or surveillance of the parking lot fringe areas in the evening — the time and area where you were violently mugged.  Now, you would have to show that the violent mugging is harm that was reasonably foreseeable.  Given the facts, you would likely succeed in showing that the harm was foreseeable. 

The neighborhood and the parking lot area had seen a string of muggings in recent times that mirrored that which you suffered.  Even if the department store attempted to argue that they were not aware of these incidents, you could argue that they should have been aware and therefore should have invested further in security to protect their customers.

To succeed in bringing an inadequate security claim, you’ll want to consult with an attorney who has experience litigating such claims, as well as other premises liability claims.

Contact Randall Spivey today to connect with a skilled inadequate security attorney at the Spivey Law Firm, Personal Injury Attorneys, P.A., a Fort Myers injury law firm with a long track record of success.  We will provide a free and confidential consultation to discuss your legal rights.