What are the most common defenses to negligent security cases?

Negligent security cases in South Carolina require a plaintiff to prove that the defendant failed to act with reasonable care when providing security to its property. As such, common defenses to such cases center around the notion that the defendant did exercise reasonable care. In other words, the defendant may argue that it took all reasonable steps to provide adequate security for the premises in question. One common defense is that the plaintiff was relatively more responsible for their own harm. This defense claims that the plaintiff must have acted recklessly or neglected their own safety, thus making them more liable for the harm than the defendant. Another common defense is that the defendant was unaware of any risks associated with their property or that they did not have a duty to warn the plaintiff of potential dangers. In these cases, the defendant may argue that they made efforts to fix security problems and took all reasonable steps to make the premises safe. In some cases, the defendant may argue that they were not in control of the premises in question and that they are not liable for any failures to provide adequate security. For example, if a tenant rents from a landlord, they may argue that the landlord was responsible for the security and that they should not be held liable. Finally, the defendant may also argue that the plaintiff failed to mitigate their own damages. This defense claims that, even if the defendant was partly at fault for the harm, the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to minimize the amount of harm suffered. For example, if the plaintiff failed to seek medical attention promptly after being injured, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff was partly responsible for their own harm.

Related FAQs

What are the most common defenses to negligent security cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts