What type of evidence is used to prove negligence in negligent security cases?

In negligent security cases, plaintiffs must prove that a defendant had a duty to provide security and that they breached that duty. To do this, evidence must be presented that shows that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care when providing security. Generally, there are two types of evidence used to prove negligence: circumstantial and direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that may not directly prove a fact, but indicates its probability. In negligent security cases, circumstantial evidence consists of things like the defendant’s knowledge of the area’s crime rate, the level of security provided by the defendant in that area, and the budget allocated for security in that area. Direct evidence is evidence that proves a fact without relying on any other evidence or inference. In negligent security cases, direct evidence might include eyewitness testimony of the incident, security camera footage, and physical evidence like weapons or drugs discovered as a result of the incident. In Washington, plaintiffs may also bring a negligent security claim under a theory of premises liability. This means that a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty in that the defendant owned, managed, or controlled the property, that the defendant breached that duty by failing to use reasonable care when providing security, and that the breach was the cause of the injury or damage. In cases of premises liability, circumstantial evidence and direct evidence might be used to prove a defendant’s negligence.

What type of evidence is used to prove negligence in negligent security cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts