Skip to content

Fueling Predictable Violence – Negligent Security and Careless Supervision

Fueling Predictable Violence – Negligent Security and Careless Supervision

For Floridians, violence statistics indicate that there is approximately a 1 in 217 chance of becoming a victim of a violent crime. (1) This data presents rather grim odds when considering the number of people the average Floridian encounters on a daily basis. Unfortunately, the odds only increase when special occasions such as festivals, concerts, nightclubs or even socializing at local parks become a part of the discussion.

The potential for violent outcomes in routine activities is obvious. When injuries come to fruition, they are often accompanied with dire consequences for the victims who suffer from them. But who is to blame and what, if anything, was done to prevent this from occurring? The attacker is obvious. However, oftentimes a duty to protect or a duty to decrease an attacker’s opportunity for violence falls on a myriad of different individuals and entities. These different parties can be tasked with an assortment of legal duties or responsibilities aimed at protecting the public. Specifically, inaction can be just as deadly as the actual attack itself. When senseless violence occurs; injured victims can be left with shockingly high medical bills, residual trauma, and an overall sense of helplessness. Unfortunately, most people (including lawyers) lack the appreciation for the complexities that accompany negligent security cases or personal injury cases based on careless supervision, batteries or violent attacks. If someone fails at implementing these safeguards it can lead to exposure for injuries, which means they may bear fault when those injuries become a reality, Everyone has heard the expression “knowledge is power” and
nowhere is this phrase more applicable than personal injury cases. The importance of knowing how to handle these types of cases, who is responsible and where to look in pursing these cases, cannot be overstated.

Generally, an individual has no “duty” or “responsibility” to protect another from the misconduct of someone else or a random third party. (2) This makes sense when thinking in generalities. However, there are exceptions. In basic terms, these exceptions include when someone is in constructive or actual control of the instrument of attack (such as a weapon) used
by an attacker; the land or premises where the misconduct took place; or those in control of the actual attacker themselves, oftentimes referred to as a third-party or tort-feasor. (3) Of course, contracting away the duty or responsibility for the public’s safety can shift and change who is responsible for stepping up to the plate in ensuring the violence does not occur in the first place. 4
Whether private or governmental, duties can form beyond those of the violent aggressor just the
same. 5 Put bluntly, lawyers and investigators are limiting themselves and the value of the case
when they do not look beyond the obvious. Essentially, a duty is a responsibility, which brings
requirements. The duty to warn, take reasonable precautions, and maintain a reasonably safe

condition oftentimes hinge on the fact specific nature of any given personal injury case.
Therefore, it is imperative to understand that the duties oftentimes arise in multiples. Knowing
what duties may exist and where to look are always the foundational building blocks for
negligent security and negligent supervision cases.
Learning the potential players involved is only the first step in obtaining a complete
picture of how and why someone suffered injuries as a result of an attack. Scouring records such
as police call logs, cad-reports, crime grids, state attorney files, surveillance tapes, along with a
critical examination of security measures are basic tenements for a successful personal injury
case of this type. We are passionate about these cases at Graves Thomas Rotunda Injury Law Group. As
members of this community we see the devastation violence can bring both on a personal and
widespread level. As a law firm who has actually handled these types of cases at trial, we are
uniquely qualified in obtaining the highest recovery for those who have experienced these
horrific traumas. Retaining a firm that understands these variables is vital to success in holding
those to blame accountable. If you are an attorney and wish to refer our law firm a legal matter or
you are an injured party with questions about your own injuries, contact us for a free


1 [1]
2 Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n v. Hialeah, 468 So.2d 912, 918 (Fla. 1985).
3 Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. v. Horne, 505 So.2d 560, 562 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2987), approved, 533 So.2d 261 (Fla.
1988); Daly v. Denny’s Inc., 694 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
4 Burns Intern. Sec. Services Inc. of Fla. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 889 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
5 Wallace v. Dean, 3 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 2009).

Ready to Get Started?

Recent News

Making a Splash at the 6th Annual Graves Thomas Rotunda Injury Law Group Swim Day!

What a fantastic day we had at the Gifford Aquatic Center for our 6th Annual Swim Day! We were thrilled to welcome a record-breaking crowd of 226 guests, and it
Read More

Noteworthy Facts about Collision Involving Several Vehicles

Frequently, drivers refer to such multi-car accidents as a pile-up.  Whatever name gets used for such an event, that same event has been linked to some specific features. Conditions that
Read More