God forbid, you’re assaulted at a hotel, mall or apartment building. Prior to now, if you sued the property owner for negligently failing to provide sufficient security to deter the crime, the property owner could not defend himself by blaming the assailant for the injuries. The landlord’s hands were tied: Nowhere on the verdict form was the property owner allowed to include the criminal assailant who had actually committed the crime as a liable party in a civil suit for money damages.
That now changes. Property owners being sued for negligent security can now defend themselves in Florida civil court by blaming the criminal for crimes and injuries inflicted on their property–even if the criminal is not an actual party to the case. At trial, the new law says, “the jury must consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the injury.”
Juries will now be asked to apportion fault among not only landowner and the victim but the criminal assailant as well. Thus, Florida law now allows property owners to avoid liability by blaming the criminal who the property owner is supposed to protect his visitors from.
For every dollar of fault apportioned by a jury to the assailant in a negligent security case, the landlord or property owner will pay less, and the injured victim’s damages will be reduced. Afterall, the criminal assailant is rarely collectible; whereas, the property owner usually has deep pockets.
This “reform” is going to reduce recoveries in negligent security cases by millions. But one may ask, is it fair to compare the fault of one who acts in a negligent or careless manner with the fault of one who acts with malicious criminal intent? And will this change in the law result in greater care for safety on the part of property owners or less?
