Two third-party criminal assault claims have made the news recently. In each case, the injured party or their family is seeking compensation in a civil court after a crime was committed against them or their family member by an unknown third party. According to the Press Enterprise, the mother of a 14-year-old boy killed in a drive-by shooting is seeking compensation from the City of Riverside for failing to warn of or prevent the shooting and/or prosecute the criminals. In the second case, a family is suing an Inland Empire school district for failing to prevent a violent assault against them that took place after a high school football game.
The Law In California - The Post-Game Assault
In the case of a property owner or someone in control of certain property, there is a legal duty to protect people on the property from a violent attack when the owner/occupier knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur. In the case of the post-game fight referenced above, the school district would only be liable if they knew or had reason to know the attack was likely to occur. For example, if the district knew that after these two schools had played in the past there had been multiple fights, then there may well have been a duty to provide more security than was present at the time of the assault on the family. It must also be shown, however, that the additional security likely would have prevented the attack from occurring in the first place. Generally, in order to successfully pursue such a claim an expert would have to be hired to testify about the need for security and the likelihood or preventing the assault.
The Law in California - Obligations of the Police
Under the law in California, the general rule is that although the government may assume responsibility for providing adequate police protection against third party violence, this does not create a legal duty that normally will give rise to civil liability. In other words, public entities (such as police departments) generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime. In most instances, these general rules prevent the victims of violent crimes and their families from recovering compensation based on a claim that their injuries and losses could have been prevented by timely assistance from a law enforcement officer. In the case above, it seems doubtful any one of the exceptions to these general rules would apply. If that proves to be true, the only civil recourse the family would have then would be directly against the perpetrator(s) of the drive by shooting.
In both of the cases above, what appears to be missing from these cases is some action or inaction by security or the police that created a "special relationship" with the victim(s) and therefore a duty to take action. Liability may be imposed if a security or police officer voluntarily assumes a duty to provide a particular level of protection, and then fails to do so, or if an officer undertakes affirmative acts that increase the risk of harm to the plaintiff. For example, if a security officer had agreed to escort the family in the post-game fight to their car and was then careless in the manner in which he did it, liability could be imposed and damages awarded.
If you or a loved one has been the victim of a third-party criminal assault, a free consultation with an experienced injury attorney may be the most important step to take in terms of understanding your right to compensation.
SOURCE: RIVERSIDE: Mother of slain teen seeks $7 million from city (12:30 P.M. UPDATE), the Press Enterprise, September 26, 2013, by Brian Rokos
SOURCE: MENIFEE: Post-game fight prompts lawsuit, the Press Enterprise, September 25, 2013, by Sarah Burge
The Law In California - The Post-Game Assault
In the case of a property owner or someone in control of certain property, there is a legal duty to protect people on the property from a violent attack when the owner/occupier knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur. In the case of the post-game fight referenced above, the school district would only be liable if they knew or had reason to know the attack was likely to occur. For example, if the district knew that after these two schools had played in the past there had been multiple fights, then there may well have been a duty to provide more security than was present at the time of the assault on the family. It must also be shown, however, that the additional security likely would have prevented the attack from occurring in the first place. Generally, in order to successfully pursue such a claim an expert would have to be hired to testify about the need for security and the likelihood or preventing the assault.
The Law in California - Obligations of the Police
Under the law in California, the general rule is that although the government may assume responsibility for providing adequate police protection against third party violence, this does not create a legal duty that normally will give rise to civil liability. In other words, public entities (such as police departments) generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime. In most instances, these general rules prevent the victims of violent crimes and their families from recovering compensation based on a claim that their injuries and losses could have been prevented by timely assistance from a law enforcement officer. In the case above, it seems doubtful any one of the exceptions to these general rules would apply. If that proves to be true, the only civil recourse the family would have then would be directly against the perpetrator(s) of the drive by shooting.
In both of the cases above, what appears to be missing from these cases is some action or inaction by security or the police that created a "special relationship" with the victim(s) and therefore a duty to take action. Liability may be imposed if a security or police officer voluntarily assumes a duty to provide a particular level of protection, and then fails to do so, or if an officer undertakes affirmative acts that increase the risk of harm to the plaintiff. For example, if a security officer had agreed to escort the family in the post-game fight to their car and was then careless in the manner in which he did it, liability could be imposed and damages awarded.
If you or a loved one has been the victim of a third-party criminal assault, a free consultation with an experienced injury attorney may be the most important step to take in terms of understanding your right to compensation.
SOURCE: RIVERSIDE: Mother of slain teen seeks $7 million from city (12:30 P.M. UPDATE), the Press Enterprise, September 26, 2013, by Brian Rokos
SOURCE: MENIFEE: Post-game fight prompts lawsuit, the Press Enterprise, September 25, 2013, by Sarah Burge
No comments:
Post a Comment