JUNE 14, 2016:
As a personal injury lawyer that helps victims hurt in shootings, the issue of negligent security is always a concern that must be addressed. Without question, the shooter is clearly responsible for the damages, but apportionment of liability sometimes falls on the proprietor of the premises where the incident occurred. For example, the shooting that occurred at the Orlando nightclub, Pulse, raises questions as to the legitimacy of the security measures employed by the club.
For Plaintiff lawyers representing those injured in shootings, a major challenge is proving foreseeability. Specifically, it must be established that the act that occurred was foreseeable by the night club or premises and could have or should have been prevented. From a legal standpoint, foreseeability is the ability on the part of the defendant to reasonably anticipate the potential results of an action, including damage or injury occurring from the premise owner’s negligence.
In the case of the Pulse Club shooting, once the dust settles and the investigation by the authorities is complete, a key question to be answered is whether the nightclub could have done anything to prevent this incident – or whether the club could have foreseen someone coming in with an AK-47. Apart from the burning question of how someone just walks into a club with a large assault rifle in the middle of summer in Florida, other issues must be resolved surrounding the strength of the security presence at the after-hours bar.
In the end, any injured victim that brings a personal injury case against the club will need to establish that the nightclub somehow could have prevented this terrorist act. At this juncture, without any discovery or evidence proving or disproving such a theory, the onus falls on the injured person to conduct investigation into the foreseeability and preventability of such a situation.
Injured in an accident or shooting? Contact our Aventura Personal Injury Lawyers today by CLICKING HERE!