The Risk of Violence

Unfortunately, shootings occur on a daily basis in the United States at homes, places of work and yes, even restaurants. I remember back in 1991, when there was a mass shooting at a Luby’s Restaurant in Killeen, Texas, where 23 people were killed and 27 people were injured.   

Was Luby’s responsible? At that time, public shootings were so rare, especially mass shootings. Today, that is no longer the case. Liability is often shifted from the assailant to the property owner, who failed to protect their customers. In many instances, the shooter is either killed or caught and imprisoned. There are no funds to compensate.  When a shooting occurs on a property, questions about liability inevitably arise, and understanding the legal principles surrounding this issue becomes crucial. 

Duty of Care  

Today, there is an awareness that there are people who do not mind taking another person’s life. Property owners owe a duty of care to individuals who enter their premises. This duty typically encompasses the responsibility to maintain a safe environment and to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm.  

While the specifics of this duty can vary depending on factors such as the type of property and the relationship between the owner and the visitor (e.g., invitee, licensees, trespasser), the overarching principle remains the same: property owners must exercise reasonable care to protect against foreseeable dangers. 

Foreseeability and Negligence 

In cases involving shootings on premises, one key question is whether the shooting was foreseeable. Foreseeability refers to whether a reasonably prudent person could have anticipated the risk of harm under the circumstances. If it can be demonstrated that the property owner knew or should have known about the risk of violence on the premises, yet failed to take appropriate precautions to address it, they may be found negligent in security and guilty of wrongful death.  

Factors that courts may consider in assessing foreseeability include: 

  • Prior incidents: If there have been previous instances of violence or criminal activity on the property, this may suggest that the risk of a shooting was foreseeable. 
  • Location: Properties located in high-crime areas or areas with a history of violence may be held to a higher standard of care. 
  • Security measures: The adequacy of security measures, such as lighting, surveillance cameras, security personnel and access controls, may be evaluated in determining whether the property owner took reasonable steps to prevent harm. 

Premises Liability Laws 

The legal principles governing liability for shootings on premises fall under the umbrella of premises liability law. In Georgia, property owners generally are not automatically responsible for injuries or deaths that occur on their premises due to third-party criminal activity, like shootings. However, there are situations where a property owner could be held liable under the legal concept of premises liability. 

Premises liability dictates that property owners have a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises for individuals lawfully on the property, including tenants, guests and invitees. This duty may extend to implementing appropriate security measures to protect against foreseeable criminal acts. 

Here’s what determines potential liability in a shooting incident: 

  • Negligent security. Did the property owner fail to provide adequate security measures like proper lighting, security cameras, security personnel or access controls? If such a failure existed and contributed to the shooting, the owner could be liable for negligence. 
  • Foreseeability. Could the property owner have reasonably foreseen the risk of criminal activity on the premises? Factors like the property’s location, history of crime, known risks in the surrounding area or prior incidents of violence on the property are considered. 
  • Notice and response. Did the property owner respond appropriately to known or foreseeable risks of violence? This might involve taking proactive measures like addressing security concerns or hiring security personnel. 

While laws vary by jurisdiction, premises liability generally encompasses three categories of visitors: 

  • Invitees. Individuals who are invited onto the property for the benefit of the owner, such as customers in a store or patrons in a restaurant. Property owners owe invitees the highest duty of care and must take reasonable steps to ensure their safety. 
  • Licensees. Individuals who have permission to be on the property but are there for their own purposes, such as social guests. Property owners have a duty to warn licensees of known dangers that may not be obvious to them. 
  • Trespassers. Individuals who enter the property without permission. While property owners generally owe trespassers a lower duty of care, they still must refrain from willfully or wantonly causing harm. 

Mitigating Liability 

Property owners can take proactive steps to mitigate their liability for shootings on premises: 

  • Risk assessment. Conducting regular assessments of the property to identify potential safety hazards and security risks. 
  • Implementing security measures. Installing security cameras, alarms, lighting and access controls can deter criminal activity and enhance the safety of the premises. 
  • Training staff. Providing employees with training on how to recognize and respond to security threats can help prevent violent incidents and minimize harm if they occur. 
  • Liability insurance. Obtaining appropriate liability insurance coverage can provide financial protection in the event of a lawsuit arising from a shooting on the property. 

While property owners cannot completely eliminate the risk of shootings on their premises, they can take proactive steps to mitigate this risk and fulfill their duty of care to visitors. By implementing appropriate security measures, conducting risk assessments and staying informed about relevant legal principles, property owners can help protect both their guests and themselves from the potential consequences of violent incidents.  

Ultimately, fostering a safe and secure environment should be a top priority for all property owners, regardless of the type or location of their property.