Regardless of the size and sophistication of a business –
from the sole proprietor of the neighborhood bar to the international
conglomerate – the concept of providing a reasonably safe premises remains the
same: namely, a business must provide
reasonable security commensurate with reasonably foreseeable threats and risks;
and reasonable foreseeability is generally determined by a conscious analysis
of the inherent nature of the business and the history of general criminal acts
at and around the business.
While large organizations may meet their obligation to
provide a safe environment via sophisticated security programs with designated
personnel and formalized policies and procedures, even small businesses must do
something proactively to meet their obligation – they must still take into
account the kinds of problems that they will likely encounter given their
particular situation (i.e., location, nature of business, clientele, prior
problems, etc.).
Many small businesses erroneously presume that their small
size will somehow either preclude problems or somehow absolve them of their
legal obligation to provide a safe environment. But statistics continue to show that small businesses – bars,
apartment buildings, retail stores, etc. – are the venues where criminal
activities are most likely to occur and consequently the kinds of places most
likely to be sued for inadequate security.
And the settlements and awards stemming from these lawsuits should give
business owners and operators cause for concern.
This information is important for 2
reasons: First, it is prudent for businesses to understand that proactive attention to security matters is
better and ultimately less expensive than after-the-fact litigation; and
businesses that may find themselves involved in premises security liability cases need to remember that the criteria by which security is
assessed will be the same regardless of the size of the business at which an
incident has occurred.
Posts
