What are the most common defenses to negligent security cases?

When a person is injured due to inadequate security measures, they may be able to file a negligence security lawsuit against the responsible party. In such a case, the defendant may try to use any of the following defenses to minimize or avoid liability. The first defense is a lack of knowledge or foresight. The defendant may claim that they had no idea that a crime was likely to occur or that an injury may be sustained by their customer. If the defendant can demonstrate that they did not have any knowledge of the potential harm, then a negligence security case cannot proceed. The second defense is foreseeable harm. The defendant may claim that although they were aware of the potential harm, they had no way of preventing it from occurring. This defense is only successful if the defendant can demonstrate that the risk of harm was not foreseeable and that it was out of their control. The third defense is comparative negligence. This defense states that the plaintiff’s own negligence partially or wholly contributed to the injury. In order for the defendant to be successful in this defense, they must prove that the plaintiff’s actions contributed to their own harm. Finally, the fourth defense is assumption of risk. If a plaintiff voluntarily entered into a situation that was willfully dangerous, the defendant may be able to argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk of harm and therefore cannot recover damages from the defendant. These are the most common defenses used in negligent security cases. It is important for defendants to understand the various defenses available to them if they are ever facing such a legal claim.

What are the most common defenses to negligent security cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts