Inadequate Security and the Bryan Stow Case

Just over three years ago, Bryan Stow was beaten and critically injured following a baseball game at Dodger Stadium.  Tragically, Stow suffered a severe traumatic brain injury as a result of the attack.  The two assailants responsible for the assault are now serving their sentences for their crimes, and the civil case against the Los Angeles Dodgers organization is well underway.  As is being reported by KNBC news, the civil trial in Los Angeles is being prosecuted because of alleged inadequate security that may have allowed this horrific incident to have occurred.

Inadequate Security Law in California

Under California law, a property/business owner (like those in charge of Dodger Stadium) has an obligation to ensure their property is maintained in a reasonably safe manner, and this includes an obligation to protect patrons from the violent acts of criminals.  Generally, these civil cases fall into two types: those in which there is a history of violence and therefore a duty to protect and those in which there is an ongoing escalation of violence, or potential violence, and the landowner has a duty to intervene.   There is not a duty on the part of every landowner or business operator to provide security guards to protect their patrons, unless the obligation is imposed because of prior similar incidents or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults at the location.  In the Stow matter, the lawyers prosecuting the case will have to show there had been previous acts of violence or that on March 31, 2011, stadium employees should have been aware Stow (or others) were in imminent danger of being assaulted and failed to reasonably intervene.  

When You Have Been Assaulted on Business Property

Whether it is in a stadium, a bar, a restaurant or some other business establishment, if you are assaulted while on someone else's property, you may have a valid civil case against the business or landowner.  It must be shown there was a negligent failure to provide adequate protection that led to your injuries, but these cases often merit pursuing.  If you have been injured or a loved one killed because of a criminal assault on business property, contacting an experienced Orange County civil attorney with a security background may be the best step toward obtaining compensation for the injuries and damages suffered.

SOURCE:  Dodger Stadium Security Questioned in Beating Trial, KNBC News, June 3, 2014, by Patrick Healey

Inland Empire Third-Party Civil Claims Make the News

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