Missouri Injury Law Blog

Some of the victims have already filed civil lawsuits arising from the tragic attack at the batman showing in Aurora Colorado. See James Holmes Massacre First Lawsuit. According to this particular victim's personal injury lawyer, he sees three defendants:

1. the theater for negligent security;
2. the gunman's doctor for not properly monitoring him; and
3. Warner Brothers because the film was particularly violent.

The first claim, negligent security, may have merit, however, the second two claims are absurd. As a St Louis lawyer that has handled negligent security cases in the past, I believe the best argument is against the theater for negligent security. However, this is still a very difficult case to pursue. I am not certain about Colorado law, but under Missouri law the Plaintiff must show that the maintenance, functionality, or security of the door was negligent and the crime was also foreseeable. How is foresee-ability proven? Typically through experts that rely on crime statistics for that specific property and in the general area. For example, what was the rate of violent crime in the area? If there is a high rate or above average rate of violent crime, then maybe violent crime was foreseeable, thus the shooting was foreseeable and better security measures should have been in place.

Additionally, was the outside door the shooter entered through a security door? In Missouri under the case Keenan v Miriam Foundation, the Plaintiff does not have to establish prior violent crime if the Defendant assumed the duty to provide exterior security doors.

"One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person or his things, for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if:

(a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm,
or
(b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person,
or
(c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking."

Therefore, once a duty is assumed there is an obligation to reasonably fulfill that duty. So did the movie theater know of prior crime or problems with that outer door? Were they aware of people in the past bypassing that door from the inside or outside? See, Legal elements of 3rd party criminal act injury cases. See also, Missouri Law on Suing a Property Owner for Negligent Security after a Criminal Attack - Assumption of the Duty , also see, Defective and Unmaintained Security Doors - Rape of woman inside her own apartment.

Lastly, the theater has a strong defense based on an unforeseeable attack. The attacker went through such extensive preparation and planning that the defense will argue that the victims were targeted months in advance and that a higher level of security would not have prevented this crime, and that the attacker would have just found another was to pull of his scheme.

Can the negligent security claim be successful? yes, but it depends on a lot of evidence that we do not know about yet. A far as the other two claims, they will likely be dismissed by the court long before they ever get in front of a jury.

Continue reading "Batman Movie Shooting Lawsuits - Can they be Successful? " »

Recently, St Louis injury law firm Sansone / Lauber secured a $760,000.00 settlement for our client who was sexually assaulted in her apartment. See Defective and Poorly Maintained Security Doors.

The parties involved in the settlement are being kept confidential to protect the identity of our client, however, I can say that the defendant was a St Louis area apartment owner that we maintained had knowledge of the crime levels in the area based on crime statistics available to them and reported crimes at the apartment complex. Despite the levels of crime the property owner allowed the common area security doors to remain in disrepair despite consistent complaints by the tenants.

Unfortunately, as a result of the inoperable security doors, a criminal was able to easily and quickly obtain access to our client's apartment making her an easy target for burglary and sexual assault. Several witnesses testified to the poor conditions and upkeep of the common area security doors as well as the apartment front doors and to the crime level in the neighborhood as well. There were constant complaints to management regarding the conditions and security concerns. Some issues were dealt with for temporary resolution and many issues were simply ignored. Several assaults and robberies took place against tenants and food delivery drivers.

In order to have a claim against a property owner, there must not only be a criminal act that causes injury, you must first establish a legal duty on the property owner to protect you from that criminal act.

ESTABLISHING A LEGAL DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY:

DUTY AS A MATTER OF LAW: Under Aaron v Havens.pdf there is a duty as a matter of law on a landlord to keep the common areas safe. In the Aaron case where a rape occurred after access by the intruder up the fire escape and through an unlocked apartment window the court stated "[i]f a private apartment can be entered through a window, injury to the occupants is foreseeable."

The scope of admissible evidence under Aaron is broad. Therein the Court held: "it is not necessary to allege that past crimes involving entry into unauthorized places are of the same general nature as the one which gave rise to the claim. If a burglar may enter, so may a rapist. To find a duty only the incidence of harm, not necessarily the quantum need be foreseeable."

In our case, we argued the Arron case applied as the building security doors and the apartment front doors were controlled by the owner according to the undisputed testimony of the witnesses. Thus, it is common area and according to Aaron there is a duty as a matter of law. Additionally, in our case the owner breached the duty by providing the locked doors and barely attempting to maintain them through cheap temporary fixes.

DUTY ESTABLISHED BY SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS:

If the duty is not established as a matter of law, a duty can be imposed on a land owner based on special relationships. For a detailed discussion of the special relationships duty see Legal Elements and Issues Related to 3rd Pary Criminal Act Personal Injury cases in Missouri.

RELATED BLOG POSTS:

Missouri Law on Suing a Property Owner for Negligent Security after a Criminal Attack - Assumption of the Duty

Negligent Security - is the Starbucks Tip Jar Lawsuit a Good Case?

Missouri Waiver of Personal Injury From Future Negligence Clauses in Apartment Lease Contracts - Are they Enforceable?

Continue reading "$760,000.00 Settlement - St Louis Negligent Security resulting in Sexual Assault" »

The general rule in Missouri is that a property owner is not legally responsible for injuries caused from a 3rd party criminal attacker just because the attack occurred on their property. However, in many situations such a duty can be establish through assumption of that duty by the property or business owner. Additionally, other factors and situations can create the duty, subjects for another article. This article focuses of assumption of a duty in Missouri negligent security cases. For information on special relationships and other law on negligent security cases see: Legal Elements and Issues Related to 3rd Pary Criminal Act Personal Injury cases in Missouri - Special Relationship or Circumstances Must Exist

Liability for 3rd Party Criminal Attack through Assumption of the Duty:

Under Missouri law a business or property owner can be legally liable, under a negligent security theory, for injuries resulting from a third party criminal attack if that business or property owner voluntarily assumed the duty to protect its invitees from criminal attacks and did not carry out that assumed duty with reasonable care. The assumption of the duty to provide security under Missouri law was established in 1990 by the Keenan v. Miriam Foundation case, which is still good law today.

Under the Keenan v Miriam Foundation case, a plaintiff does not have to establish prior violent crime as the Defendant assumed the duty, that assumption establishes the duty without prior violent crime, which is only required when the duty is established as a matter of law, not by assumption. Keenan adopted the Restatement 2nd of Torts approach, stating:

"One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person or his things, for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if

(a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm,
or
(b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person,
or
(c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking."

Therefore, even without prior violent crime the property owner knew or should have known about, they can assume the duty to provide security. If they assume that duty they must carry out that duty in a reasonable way.

A current case our injury law firm is handling arises out a of a violent sexual assault in St Louis that occurred at an apartment complex in north county. For background facts of the case see injury law article: Premise Liability - St Louis Missouri - Defective and Unmaintained Security Doors - Rape of woman inside her own apartment. In this case the St Louis apartment complex owner bought the apartment buildings about ten years prior to the assault. The evidence is that when the the property was bought all of the security doors and locks were in good working order and that the owner's intention was to keep them in working order - ASSUMPTION OF THE DUTY! The problem occurred because the owner did not maintain those security doors and locks and allowed the majority of them to go into serious disrepair.

Related Articles:

Missouri Waiver of Personal Injury From Future Negligence Clauses in Apartment Lease Contracts - Are they Enforceable?

$54 Million Verdict - Premises Liability - Security Failure - 3rd Party Criminal Action

Continue reading "Missouri Law on Suing a Property Owner for Negligent Security after a Criminal Attack - Assumption of the Duty" »

Recently I came across an article about a St Louis Missouri wrongful death lawsuit arising from an incident where a Starbucks customer chased a tip jar thief out of the store and ended up being killed after suffering a head injury when the thief attempted to flee in his car. See Starbucks Tip Jar Lawsuit

I read the comments below the article and was a little disturbed by the comments. As a preface, I know nothing about this lawsuit other then the above article and I am not familiar with the lawyer who filed it. It disturbs me how fast people comment and claim frivolous lawsuits and the need for tort reform because their common sense dictates this is a ridiculous case. I have personally handled negligent security cases, in fact one I am handling resulted in a brutal rape of a tenant at an apartment building. See St Louis negligent security claim after sexual assault. In that case the apartment complex knew their security doors were faulty and in disrepair, and because of the faulty security doors and hollow core inner doors, a rapist was able to practically walk right into a young woman's apartment and brutally rape her. This occurred in a high crime area where the owners were aware of the multiple assaults over the past years, yet allowed the disrepair.

The injury attorney that filed this St Louis death case has a tough battle, and I predict that the trial Judge will dismiss the case, I believe the facts of this case, at least as I understand them, are too flimsy, Starbucks did not take on a duty to provide that extent of security and I believe the trial Judge will find no duty existed thus no breach of a duty and therefore no negligence.

So tort reformers relax, we have Judges and we have laws, just because a lawsuit is filed does not mean everyone is going to get sued for everything. The main political party behind tort reform also preaches about getting back to the fundamental roots of the constitution, well what about the 7th amendment? Right to a Trial by jury? The people behind "Tort Reform" want to take that away.

The jury system is "tort reform", juries (you and me) will be the deciders on the case, assuming it is not thrown out by the judge prior to getting there. Missouri Personal injury lawyers front massive costs and get no up front fees, if they file a "frivolous" case they will likely eventually lose and be out lots of money, do this a few times and the lawyer is out of business.

So, rather than scream tort reform and frivolous lawsuit, let the system work, if it is such a legally merit-less case the Judge will throw it out on legal grounds, if not, and it is such a factually merit-less claim the jury will rule for Starbucks.

Lastly, to the people that think the above case will lead to little old ladies getting sued for allowing their purses to get stolen, relax, it is legally impossible as an individual does not have the legal duty to provide security from criminal acts of a 3rd party.

Missouri injury attorneys are often retained by victims of personal injury resulting from the negligence of a landlord, whether it is a slip and fall, Missouri premise liability, or a failure to protect from 3rd party criminal conduct, assuming the duty has been established.

One such case my St Louis personal injury law firm is handling is a St Louis premise liability action against an apartment complex for negligent security. In this particular case, the common area security doors were defective and in serious disrepair allowing two men to enter the common area then quickly and easily kick through the flimsy inner door of an apartment and sexually assault the female resident. I personally inspected the door a few days after the assault and several other "security doors" in the complex and most of them were opened without using the key and with a slight push. For further information on this sexual assault and negligent security apartment lawsuit see the link above.

As in many St Louis Missouri apartment complex personal injury cases, the landlord has a contract clause in the lease stating they are not responsible for any negligent acts.

There are several personal injury court opinions from Missouri courts holding, as a matter of law, that such oftentimes these types of negligence release clauses are insufficient to bar an injury victim's claim for negligence. Generally, such clauses are disfavored and strictly construed against the party attempting to enforce it. Especially in the landlord tenant relationship because of the disparity of bargaining power, often referred to as a contract of adhesion.

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that "the exculpatory language must effectively notify a party that he or she is releasing the other party from claims arising from the other party's own negligence." Alack v. Vic Tanny International of Missouri, 923 S.W.2d 330, 337 (Mo 1996).

The Alack decision also makes it clear that such waivers of negligence also fail as a matter of law when applied to Missouri punitive damage claims. In negligence cases, punitive damages are an issue "if, at the time of the negligent act, the defendant 'knew or had reason to know that there was a high degree of probability that the action would result in injury" and the defendant showed "conscious disregard for the safety of others."

Continue reading "Missouri Waiver of Personal Injury From Future Negligence Clauses in Apartment Lease Contracts - Are they Enforceable?" »

Missouri personal injury premise liability for criminal acts arises when there is (1) a "special relationship or circumstances" between the landowner and the personal injury victim, (2) personal injury resulting from a criminal act of a 3rd party, and (3) causation, i.e. the criminal act would have likely been prevented with proper security. At the end of this article are several examples of St Louis personal injury 3rd party criminal act cases. Also, see St Louis premise liability injury lawyer - Faulty security - woman raped in own apartment.

(1) Special Relationship or Circumstances:

As stated above, for a Missouri personal injury claim based on landowner liability for the criminal act of another, there must be a special relationship or circumstances between the landowner and the victim. The special circumstances or relationship are decided by the court, not the jury, and are based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Examples of how a special relationship established between apartment owner and tenant or guest for a Missouri personal injury claim for injuries arising from third party criminal act:

(A) Landlord made contractual or other representations or assurances to the tenant concerning security;
(B) Landlord had notice of potential danger because there have been previous instances of crimes of similar character on the premises;
(C) Landlord exposed the tenant to an enhanced risk of crime, and the landlord had notice of the risk due to the past instances of crime;
(D) Landlord retained the right to exclusive control of the security mechanism (i.e. outer security doors, window locks, other reasonable and ordinary security measures.)
(E) Landlord was negligent in maintaining the door and lock through which Plaintiff's assailants gained access to her residence.

Missouri injury cases discussing special relationship or circumstances:

Stubbs v. Panek, 829 S.W.2d 544 (Mo Ct App. W.D. 1992)
Missouri personal injury case for third party criminal act involving a landlord/tenant relationship. A duty existed as the landlord retained the right to control the security door and was notified of its need for repair.

Brown v National Supermarkets Inc., 679 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. Ct App. E.D. 1984)
St Louis personal injury lawsuit for third party criminal act and injury occurring in business parking lot.

Vittengal v. Fox, 967 S.W.2d 269 (Mo App W.D. 1998)
Missouri personal injury claim from third party criminal act, in this case the court of appeals decided no special relationship was established based on the facts of the case and landowner was not liable for assault. I agree with this case finding, the landowner simply could not be expected to prevent this criminal act, under the facts of the case the Missouri personal injury lawyer simply could not plead facts proving there was faulty security or other negligence by the landlord.

Aaron v Havens, 758 S.W.2d 446 (Mo 1998)
St Louis personal injury case wherein the court found a special relationship because the fire escape allowed a criminal to climb up to a window and balcony doors, both which had faulty latches and locks. There was evidence that the landlord had knowledge of these conditions and failed to act.

As discussed in an earlier Missouri injury Law blog article, we represent victims of 3rd party criminal action when the criminal was allowed to attack the victim as a result of faulty security or safety measures of the property owner. One such St Louis injury case arises from the rape of a young woman because of faulty security doors at her apartment. See - St Louis Personal Injury Rape Lawsuit arising from Faulty Security by Apartment Complex Owner.

These cases are egregious especially when the injury could have been avoided by simply repairing faulty security doors or doing simple other preventative measures. Recently, a jury returned a verdict of $54 million ($5 million compensatory damages and $49 million punitive) resulting from the rape a a patient at a health services company. This amount may seem excessive, however, the victim will never collect anything near that amount. But what that verdict did do was send a message to large corporations that they need to be concerned about the safety and security of the "little people".

Other sample cases similar to our St Louis rape and personal injury lawsuit are discussed in the Missouri personal injury blog article linked to above.

Currently, I am handling a St Louis personal injury premise liability and negligent maintenance/security case arising from an apartment complex owner or manager's complete failure to maintain and repair outer security doors of the apartment buildings in the complex. The failure to keep these doors operable allowed several assailants to walk right into the apartment building, kick in the inner door to my client's apartment (which is a flimsy wood door) and proceed to rob and brutally rape her at gun point.

Apartment complexes are places that are often open to the public, thus, the apartment property owner has an obligation to provide a safe environment. Especially when the area is a known high crime area. We pulled the St Louis County police records that indicated over 200 calls to 911 from the apartment complex reporting crimes occurring there. Of those, there were about a dozen violent crimes that occurred in the year prior to our client becoming a victim to sexual assault, including two reported rapes. This is direct evidence that the apartment owner or managers knew or should have known about the potential danger, thus putting them on legal notice to substantiate a Missouri personal injury claim based on premise liability and negligent maintenance or security.

Apartment complex owners have a legal obligation to maintain the property in a safe condition, to protect their renters from personal injury. Common injuries include burglary, robbery, parking lot rape, sexual assaults, and murder that result from inadequate or negligent security.

Most shocking was that almost all of the building in the complex had defective, unmaintained, and just plain inoperative security doors. I walked through the entire complex and several residents showed me how easily their young children could just pull on the security doors and they would open or the doors were in such disrepair that the locking mechanism was missing entirely or would not latch to the door frame.

Premise Liability - Negligent Security at Apartment - $9 Million Verdict
Download file

Negligent security at apartment complex, rape in parking lot - $2.5 Million settlement.
Download file