In these circumstances, either the property owner (or controller) and the security company may be deemed liable for negligent security.
The duty of the landowner is to guard against foreseeable criminal attack, and the element of foreseeability, in particular, is essential. However, as in the case of a hotel, the duty is not delegable, and when a special relationship exists between the patron and the business, the mere hiring of a security company will not alleviate the responsibility of the landowner to provide for such reasonable security.
The duty of the security company, on the other hand, is to guard against crime, which is founded upon particular undertakings and hence obligations of the defendants to do so. Under these circumstances, the duty of the security company may not be based upon foreseeability of crime or harm, as is the case with the landowner, but based upon the specific duty to guard against criminal attack, and, hence, foreseeability, such as that from prior criminal activity, is not essential.
Under these circumstances, even though the contract for security is likely with the landowner, the security company can still be deemed responsible to the injured third party, based upon the security company’s breach of its contractual obligations to the landowner.
If you have a situation concerning properties that employ security providers and negligent security, please contact the Florida law experts at Corless Barfield Trial Group at 877-517-5595.
