A court will most likely find that the attack was unforeseeable as a matter of law. A business owes a duty to protect customers from criminal attacks that are reasonably foreseeable, which is dependent on industry standards, community crime rate, amount of assaults or criminal activity in the area or in similar business enterprises, and the presence of suspicious person and the peculiar security problems posed by the premises design, however, Florida law makes it clear that an owner is not an insurer of his customer’s safety. (See Satchwell, 1348). Foreseeability can be proven by two alternative means (Banosomoro, 912). First, a plaintiff can show that an owner knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on his premises that was likely
…show more content…
In Banosmoreno v. Walgreen Co., the plaintiff was shopping in Walgreens when he was physically attacked by a boyfriend of a store employee (Banosomerno, 912). Based on crime statistics, the plaintiff presented evidence that the retailer knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on its property (Banosomerno, 912). Plaintiff points to the police Offense Incident Reports for the crime grid encompassing Walgreens and areas in clos proximity. (Banosomerno). Walgreens stresses that from the 51 calls plaintiff brought forth, only two resulted in police reports. (Banosomerno). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to point to any evidence of criminal incidents within the fifteen-month time period prior to the incident at issue. (Banosomerno). The attack was a personal dispute occurring inside the store, and there was no reason that the retailer should have foreseen that continuously monitoring security cameras could have prevented this personal assault in the drugstore (Bonosmoreor, 912). Banosomerno distinguishes from Foster v. Po Folks, Inc. where evidence of prior police calls and dangerious confortation in the parking lot where the incident occurred created a material issue of facts regarding foreseeability. (Banosomerno). Banosomerno was a personal dispute occuring inside the store, dissimilar to a rowdy bar or darkened parking lot (Banosomerno, …show more content…
In Allen, an attacker threw an empty glass at plaintiff patron’s face, causing permanent blindness in her left eye (See Allen, 356). At trial the jury entered a verdict in favor of Ms. Allen, and on appeal, the fourth district reversed and remanded the case for entry of judgment for the defendant (Allen, 356). The district court found that Ms. Allen had never before created a disturbance at or near the premises of the injury, and the attack was totally unexpected. However, the premises had a history of fighting and other disturbances and prior to October 1, 1977, a bouncer was employed to patrol the parking lot and prevent patrons from removing glass from the bar (Allen, 356). On the night of Ms. Allens injury, no such employee was on duty to patrol the parking lot. The jury had sufficient evidence to find that the defendant should have known of the likelihood of the injury to patrons caused by disorderly conduct, and failed to do anything about it (Allen, 356). The jury could have reasonably found that if the defendant had continued its previous policy of having a security guard to take glasses from patrons as they left, the injryy suffered by Ms. Allen would have been prevented.
In Banosmoreno v. Walgreen Co., the plaintiff was shopping in Walgreens when he was physically attacked by a boyfriend of a store employee (Banosomerno, 912). Based on crime statistics, the plaintiff presented evidence that the retailer knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on its property (Banosomerno, 912). Plaintiff points to the police Offense Incident Reports for the crime grid encompassing Walgreens and areas in clos proximity. (Banosomerno). Walgreens stresses that from the 51 calls plaintiff brought forth, only two resulted in police reports. (Banosomerno). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to point to any evidence of criminal incidents within the fifteen-month time period prior to the incident at issue. (Banosomerno). The attack was a personal dispute occurring inside the store, and there was no reason that the retailer should have foreseen that continuously monitoring security cameras could have prevented this personal assault in the drugstore (Bonosmoreor, 912). Banosomerno distinguishes from Foster v. Po Folks, Inc. where evidence of prior police calls and dangerious confortation in the parking lot where the incident occurred created a material issue of facts regarding foreseeability. (Banosomerno). Banosomerno was a personal dispute occuring inside the store, dissimilar to a rowdy bar or darkened parking lot (Banosomerno, …show more content…
In Allen, an attacker threw an empty glass at plaintiff patron’s face, causing permanent blindness in her left eye (See Allen, 356). At trial the jury entered a verdict in favor of Ms. Allen, and on appeal, the fourth district reversed and remanded the case for entry of judgment for the defendant (Allen, 356). The district court found that Ms. Allen had never before created a disturbance at or near the premises of the injury, and the attack was totally unexpected. However, the premises had a history of fighting and other disturbances and prior to October 1, 1977, a bouncer was employed to patrol the parking lot and prevent patrons from removing glass from the bar (Allen, 356). On the night of Ms. Allens injury, no such employee was on duty to patrol the parking lot. The jury had sufficient evidence to find that the defendant should have known of the likelihood of the injury to patrons caused by disorderly conduct, and failed to do anything about it (Allen, 356). The jury could have reasonably found that if the defendant had continued its previous policy of having a security guard to take glasses from patrons as they left, the injryy suffered by Ms. Allen would have been prevented.