What Are the Common Defenses in Negligent Security Litigation?
Negligent security law holds property owners responsible when inadequate security measures contribute to criminal acts that harm patrons or residents. Property owners may face lawsuits if they fail to provide proper lighting, surveillance, or protective measures, leading to injuries on their premises.
While plaintiffs may have clear cases, defendants often raise several legal defenses to limit or avoid liability.
At Hinrichs & Scott Injury Trial Lawyers in Kansas City, Missouri, we represent victims across Jackson County, Clay County, Platte County, and Cass County in Missouri, as well as Wyandotte County and Johnson County in Kansas. We handle claims where negligent security law may have contributed to injuries suffered in public or private spaces.
If you’ve been harmed due to another party’s failure to provide adequate security, we’re ready to fight for your rights. Contact us today to discuss your situation and explore legal options.
Property Owner Liability Basics
Property owners have a duty to maintain reasonably safe environments. This duty includes implementing security measures appropriate to the type of property and known risks. Failure to meet this duty may lead to claims under negligent security law. Establishing liability typically requires showing that:
The property owner owed a duty: Liability arises when a reasonable person would foresee that harm could occur without security measures.
Security measures were inadequate: Lack of proper lighting, locks, cameras, or guards can indicate negligence.
Injuries were foreseeable: The harm suffered must be a type of injury the owner could anticipate.
Direct causation exists: The negligent security directly contributed to the injury.
Property owners may argue against one or more of these points to reduce their responsibility. Understanding common defenses helps victims and their lawyers prepare for challenges in court.
Assumption of Risk
One of the most common defenses in negligent security litigation is the assumption of risk. This defense argues that the plaintiff knowingly exposed themselves to potential harm. For example:
Entering high-crime areas: If a person chooses to visit a location with known safety risks, a property owner might claim the visitor assumed the risk.
Ignoring posted warnings: Signs warning of hazards, such as “Caution: Slippery When Wet” or “Restricted Area,” may support this defense.
Engaging in risky behavior: Actions like confrontations or trespassing can weaken a claim.
While assumption of risk can limit recovery, it doesn’t always completely bar a claim. Courts typically assess whether the risk was obvious and whether the plaintiff’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances.
Comparative Negligence
Property owners may argue that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to their injuries. This defense, known as comparative negligence, allows the court to reduce damages in proportion to the plaintiff’s fault.
Key points include the plaintiff’s behavior, such as whether they were distracted, careless, or acting recklessly, the degree of fault assigned by the court to both parties, and the impact on damages—for example, a 20% fault finding reduces the total recovery by that amount.
Consulting with an experienced personal injury lawyer can help plaintiffs understand how comparative negligence may affect their case and develop strategies to protect their potential recovery. Comparative negligence doesn’t eliminate a negligent security claim but can significantly reduce the compensation a plaintiff may receive.
Lack of Foreseeability
Another common defense is that the incident was unforeseeable. Property owners may argue that the criminal act or injury was unusual and couldn’t have been predicted. Examples include:
Random acts of violence: Crimes occurring in low-risk areas without prior history.
Unusual circumstances: Unpredictable incidents that even a reasonably cautious property owner couldn’t anticipate.
Lack of prior incidents: Property owners may highlight that no similar events occurred previously.
This defense relies heavily on evidence of prior incidents, crime statistics, and expert testimony to show what a reasonable property owner should have anticipated.
Reasonable Security Measures Were Taken
Property owners often claim that they had adequate security measures in place at the time of the incident. This defense focuses on showing that:
Surveillance cameras were operational: Evidence that cameras were present and monitored.
Security personnel were on duty: Guards or patrols were scheduled as required.
Lighting and locks were appropriate: The property met standard safety requirements.
Safety protocols were followed: Emergency exits, alarms, and signage were up to code.
By demonstrating that reasonable precautions were taken, the property owner aims to reduce liability under negligent security law. Courts often consider whether these measures meet industry standards and whether a reasonable person would have acted similarly in the same situation.
Third-Party Liability
Sometimes, property owners argue that a third party caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. This defense may involve criminal acts committed by another person, where the attacker is considered primarily responsible for the harm. It can also include negligence by independent contractors or vendors who provide security or maintenance services.
In some cases, injuries result from disputes or altercations between other patrons that are unrelated to the owner’s actions. The key point in this defense is to demonstrate that the property owner’s role in the injury was minimal or that another party bore primary responsibility.
Statutory or Regulatory Compliance
Following state or local safety regulations can serve as a defense. Property owners may argue that they met all statutory requirements, which can include:
Adhering to building codes: Maintaining proper lighting, doors, and locks.
Following security mandates: Employing required personnel or monitoring systems.
Compliance with signage and warning laws: Posting legal notices and warnings.
While compliance may not fully absolve liability, it can demonstrate that the property owner acted reasonably and took precautions under the law.
Mitigation of Damages
Property owners may also claim that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. This defense argues that the injured party didn’t take reasonable steps to reduce the impact of their injuries. Examples include failing to seek timely medical treatment, returning to hazardous areas without caution, or engaging in activities that worsen the harm.
Courts may reduce compensation if they find the plaintiff didn’t reasonably protect themselves after the incident. Demonstrating a failure to mitigate damages can significantly affect the total recovery, making it an important consideration in negligent security cases.
Expert Testimony and Evidence Challenges
Defendants often challenge the credibility of plaintiffs’ claims through disputes over evidence. They may question expert testimony, arguing that opinions on security standards or injury causation lack credibility.
Defendants can also dispute the facts of the case, claiming the incident didn’t occur as described, and challenge documentation such as police reports, medical records, or surveillance footage. Successfully raising these challenges can influence a jury’s perception and potentially reduce liability in negligent security cases.
Importance of Legal Guidance
Negligent security cases involve multiple defenses, each with specific rules and evidence requirements. Having professional legal guidance helps victims respond to these defenses effectively. At Hinrichs & Scott Injury Trial Lawyers, we work to:
Gather evidence: Surveillance, witness statements, and professional opinions.
Counter defenses: Showing foreseeability, insufficiency of security, and shared fault issues.
Represent your interests: Advocating for fair compensation under negligent security law.
Understanding these defenses helps plaintiffs anticipate challenges and prepare strong cases for court or settlement negotiations. Working with knowledgeable lawyers can make a critical difference in holding negligent property owners accountable and securing the best possible outcome.
Speak With Our Lawyers
If you’ve suffered injuries due to negligent security in Missouri or Kansas, our firm is ready to advocate for your rights. We represent clients in Kansas City, Missouri, as well as Jackson County, Clay County, Platte County, and Cass County in Missouri, and Wyandotte County and Johnson County in Kansas. Contact Hinrichs & Scott Injury Trial Lawyers today to discuss your situation and explore your options under negligent security law.
