
Negligent security claims often arise when a property owner fails to take reasonable precautions to protect visitors from harm. These cases typically involve incidents like assaults, robberies, or other criminal acts that happen because of inadequate security. In Wisconsin, property owners have a legal responsibility to maintain safe conditions for people on their premises. However, a key part of these cases is proving that the harm was foreseeable. This concept of foreseeability often determines whether a property owner can be held accountable for injuries.
In Wisconsin, premises liability law, including Wis. Stat. § 101.11, places a duty on property owners to act with ordinary care to prevent injuries. This responsibility extends to protecting visitors from foreseeable criminal acts. In order to build a strong case, it’s important to understand how the law defines foreseeability and what evidence is needed to prove it.
Foreseeability means determining whether a reasonable person in the property owner’s position could have predicted the risk of harm to visitors. In negligent security cases, this often involves looking at prior incidents, the type of property, local crime statistics, and the overall conditions that may have increased the likelihood of criminal activity.
For example, if a shopping mall had reports of thefts or assaults in its parking lot, it could be argued that the mall owner should have anticipated future incidents and taken steps to improve security.
Wisconsin property owners are required to exercise reasonable care to keep their premises safe. This duty of care includes addressing dangerous conditions and providing adequate warnings about potential hazards. When it comes to security, this might mean installing surveillance cameras, hiring security personnel, or ensuring proper lighting in high-risk areas.
If similar crimes have happened on the property before, this history may indicate that the owner should have taken steps to prevent future incidents. Prior police reports and security complaints are often used as evidence.
The type of property in question plays a significant role in determining what security measures are reasonable. For instance, a hotel or an apartment complex may require higher levels of security compared to a private home due to the number of visitors and public access.
A property’s location and the crime rate in the neighborhood can also affect foreseeability. For example, if the property is in an area known for frequent criminal activity, the owner may be expected to take more substantial security measures.
Courts also look at whether the property owner had any security measures in place and whether they were sufficient. Inadequate lighting, broken locks, or a lack of security cameras can strengthen the argument that the owner failed to act reasonably.
Wisconsin follows a comparative negligence standard under Wis. Stat. § 895.045. This means a victim can recover damages even if they are partially at fault, as long as their level of fault does not exceed 50%. However, their financial compensation will be reduced based on their share of responsibility.
Property owners can be held responsible for crimes committed by third parties if the criminal act was foreseeable. For example, if a bar has a history of fights on its premises, it could be found liable for injuries resulting from an altercation that harms innocent patrons.
Victims of negligent security incidents may recover compensation for medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and other damages. In some cases, punitive damages may also be awarded if the property owner’s conduct was especially reckless.
To prove a property owner was negligent, you must establish four key elements:
Strong evidence is critical in negligent security cases. This can include:
Navigating negligent security claims can be challenging. Our firm can help you understand your valuable legal rights, gather the necessary evidence, and build a compelling case for compensation.
The open and obvious doctrine may reduce a property owner’s liability if a hazard was so apparent that a reasonable person would have avoided it. However, this doctrine does not excuse property owners from addressing foreseeable criminal risks, especially when simple measures could have prevented harm.
Yes, landlords are responsible for maintaining safe premises for tenants and visitors. If inadequate security, such as broken locks or poor lighting, contributed to the incident, the landlord may be held liable.
Wisconsin has a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including negligent security cases. It’s crucial to act quickly to preserve evidence and meet this deadline.
Negligent security incidents can have devastating effects, but you don’t have to face the aftermath alone. At The Law Offices of John V. O’Connor, we are dedicated to helping victims hold property owners accountable for failing to provide safe environments. If you’ve been injured due to inadequate security, let us help you secure the compensation you deserve.
If you need assistance after an injury, contact our Kenosha negligent security lawyer at the Law Offices of John V. O’Connor by calling (262) 605-8400 to receive your free consultation. From our law office in Kenosha, our firm represents injury victims throughout the state of Wisconsin. We ensure your voice is heard and your rights are protected. Let’s work together to pursue justice for your negligent security case.