Archive for July, 2012

Negligent Security and the Aurora, Colorado Shootings

Monday, July 30th, 2012

While a business does not have an obligation to absolutely insure the safety of their customers, they do have an obligation to take reasonable precautions to protect them from criminal acts that are foreseeable.   

The recent tragic events in Aurora, Colorado left me wondering how the gunman was able to purchase a ticket and enter the theater, then apparently leave the theater through an emergency exit, prop the door open, then change in the parking lot into full body armor, and then reenter the theater through this emergency exit with an arsenal of high powered weapons and start shooting.

Most emergency exits that I have seen at theaters have an alarm that will sound when such a door is opened, and I wonder why this theater in Colorado apparently didn’t have such an alarm.  I suspect that the owners of this theater and their liability insurer are now wondering the same thing!

While the laws of every state are different, Indiana has adopted the legal principle which is set forth in a legal treatise called the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 regarding the obligations of a business owner to provide security for their guests. The basic rule is that business owner may be liable for the criminal acts of a third person if the owner failed to use reasonable care to protect their customers.

While a business does not have an obligation to absolutely insure the safety of their customers, they do have an obligation to take reasonable precautions to protect them from criminal acts that are foreseeable.   The big question in such cases is what was foreseeable?

In considering this question, Indiana courts consider many factors such as the nature of the criminal act and whether there were prior similar incidents.  However, the lack of a prior similar incident will not prevent a claim when the business owner knew or reasonably should have known that the criminal act was foreseeable.

In the Aurora, Colorado case, whether it was foreseeable that a criminal and/or mentally ill person might enter through an emergency exit and assault patrons of the theater is likely to be a hotly contested issue.  In any event, such an act is foreseeable now.  While the hiring of armed security guards at every theater might not be practical, “reasonable precautions” that a business owner should take may be as simple as making sure that locks and alarms are in working order.

What happened in Aurora, Colorado does make people wonder, “How often am I in a situation where there is a lack of reasonable security?” Probably more than one might think. Recently, I was traveling with my family on a vacation when we stopped to stay overnight at a roadside hotel that was part of a national chain.   As I was carrying luggage into the rear of the hotel from a dimly lighted parking lot, I noticed that a back door to the hotel that was supposed to only open with a room key was standing open.  In fact, the lock was broken and anyone could walk into the hotel from the rear parking lot.

When I went to the front desk of the hotel and told the clerk about this problem she replied that the hotel had known about the problem for a month, but just hadn’t gotten around to fixing it yet.  At that point, I loaded my family back into our car and we went to another hotel.

In that situation, it was entirely foreseeable to the hotel owner that a criminal might enter the hotel through an unsecured back door in the late evening or early morning hours and rob or assault a guest, especially since there were many women and children at the hotel.

While most business owners and corporations are conscientious regarding the safety of their customers, it would appear that for others, only the threat of a lawsuit can provide the necessary motivation for them to act responsibly for the safety of their guests.  No one can prevent criminals or mentally ill people from doing bad things all the time but reasonable precautions can make the doing of such awful things more difficult so that the event may never happen in the first place.   As the old adage goes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure any day.”

 

 

Crosswalks On The Monon Trail–An Accident Waiting To Happen

Saturday, July 21st, 2012

Crosswalks On The Monon Trail And Motorists–Who’s Supposed To Stop?

This past week I received a telephone call regarding a case in which a 14-year-old girl was struck by a car while riding her bicycle in a pedestrian crosswalk on the Monon Trail in Carmel, Indiana.  At this particular intersection, there were yellow flashing lights and a clearly marked pedestrian walkway for oncoming traffic.  The young girl had stopped at this intersection and a motorist that was approaching from one direction stopped to let the girl pass.  However, a second motorist coming from the opposite direction didn’t even slow down and struck the girl, throwing her upon the hood of the car and causing some serious injuries.

In speaking with the father of this young lady after this accident, he stated that the investigating police officer told him that motorists had no obligation to stop for bicyclists who were using the Monon Trail and crossing a roadway even if there was a painted crosswalk.  In considering this to be nonsense, the father asked the police officer what reason there was for having a painted crosswalk and flashing yellow lights if traffic didn’t have to stop? In response, the police officer paused and then remarked that this was a good question.

In being an avid user of the Monon Trail myself, I have observed many instances in which some motorists stop and others don’t at marked crosswalks, often resulting in a lively exchange of vocal greetings and various hand gestures expressing good will between the motorist and bicyclist!

In Indiana, traffic laws require the driver of a car or truck to stop and let any pedestrian who is in the crosswalk to pass.  Ind. Code 9-21-8-36.  Indiana’s Official Drivers Manual also states that a motorist must “always yield the right-of-way to pedestrians.”

However, there are signs for pedestrians at these Monon Trail crosswalks which state that pedestrians should stop before crossing the road and that “Cross Traffic Does Not Stop.”  Unfortunately, this contradicts state law that requires motorists to yield the right of way to pedestrians who are in any crosswalk, regardless of whether it is located on a street in downtown Indianapolis or on the Monon Trail.  Can you imagine what would have happened if motorists during the recent Super Bowl in Indianapolis thought they didn’t have to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk?

The best policy for a bicyclist or pedestrian is to obey any posted traffic signs and not to cross any road without making sure that traffic approaching from both directions sees them and comes to a complete stop. Similarly, if a motorist is approaching a marked crosswalk, they should be aware of their obligation to stop and be cautious because it is likely that someone is going to be using that crosswalk and may not be visible until the motorist is close to the intersection.

In the meantime, signage should be displayed for motorists at all Monon Trail crosswalks that clearly states that motorists have an obligation to stop for bicyclists and pedestrians who are in the crosswalk. This could avoid accidents such as the one involving this young lady.