What are the most common defenses to negligent security cases?

In West Virginia, negligent security cases involve a person who has suffered harm or losses due to an inadequate level of security at a property. Negligent security cases can be defended in a variety of ways. One of the most common defenses is that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care. This means that the plaintiff should have taken steps to ensure their safety while on the property. For instance, if the plaintiff ignored warnings about areas of the property that were unsafe or failed to follow proper safety protocols, then this defense may be used. Another common defense is that the defendant is not responsible because they did not have a reasonable expectation of harm. This means that the defendant could not have foreseen the harm that happened and that they took reasonable steps to protect those on the property. A third defense is that the defendant took steps to protect the plaintiff, but the harm still occurred. This means that the defendant did what they reasonably could to prevent harm to the plaintiff, but that it was just an unfortunate result. This defense is often used if the defendant had no reason to believe that harm could occur. Finally, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk of being harmed by entering the property. This means that the plaintiff was aware of the potential risks and chose to enter the property anyway. This defense is often used when the harm was caused by something that was not the defendant’s fault.

Related FAQs

What are the most common defenses to negligent security cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts