Unlike typical negligence cases, in premises security litigation, the most important concept concerns the duty of care required of the owner or occupier

In premises security litigation, the most important concept concerns the duty of care required of the owner or occupier of the land. It is this duty of care which distinguishes the premises security case from a traditional negligence case. One must establish a duty of care element in order to pursue a premises security case; without a duty owed to the plaintiff, there is no case.

However, even if a business has a duty to prevent criminal activity because it is foreseeable, the duty is still one of "reasonable care under the circumstances to reduce or eliminate the opportunity for criminal attack."

Pennsylvania follows a narrow interpretation of a business owner or proprietor's duty to protect patrons from third party criminal activity. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the owner of a residential apartment building has no duty to provide security in the common areas of a building. In other cases, the Courts in Pennsylvania have held that even the presence of security on the premises does not necessarily mean that the landowner assumed a duty to protect against all forms of crime.

Name:

Phone:

Email:

What is your question?

The Monahan Law Practice
300 North Pottstown Pike
Suite 210
Exton, PA 19341-2233

Phone: (610) 363-3888
Fax: (610) 363-2429