You are currently browsing the Dowlen Law Blog weblog archives for the day August 4, 2009.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | Oct » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
- Adoption (2)
- Business Law (10)
- Child Advocacy (5)
- Constitutional Law (8)
- Criminal Law (15)
- EDAD 6050/7050 (1)
- Freedom of Religion (6)
- Freedom of Speech (6)
- General Law (15)
- Gun Law (2)
- Immigration (1)
- Injury Law (34)
- Insurance Law (28)
- Insurance Practices (19)
- Juvenile (2)
- Litigation (22)
- Negotiations (5)
- Right To Life (6)
- You've got to be kidding! (3)
- January 11, 2012: If the State cheats, they should lose.
- January 11, 2012: The hiring and firing of "ministers" - Hosanna-Tabor v/ EEOC
- December 1, 2011: Tennessee Gun Laws
- August 24, 2011: Dealing with insurance companies.
- February 9, 2011: Tennessee sticks close to the insurance policy wording.
- January 16, 2011: Church Planting
- December 29, 2010: Child Custody and a "Material Change"
- October 31, 2010: Thankful
- May 2, 2010: Issues with sex?
- April 23, 2010: Is the National Day of Prayer Constitutional?
Blogs
Other Web Sites
- January 2012
- December 2011
- August 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
Archive for August 4, 2009
Premises liability and criminal activity.
August 4, 2009 by Zale.
Tennessee recognizes a duty for business owners, in high crime areas, to take reasonable measures to protect their customers. It make sense right? If a business owner knows there is a lot of crime in their area and continues to invite customers to their business premises, then they should take the appropriate measures to protect those customers (and employees) from the criminal element that abounds in their area. This duty comes from the 1996 Tennessee Supreme Court decision McClung v. Delta Square 937 SW2d 894.
Recently, there was a case where a security company tried to escape liability by alleging that, even though they were hired to supply security for a business, they had no duty to Ms. Maggie Barron, an employee of one of the businesses.
Ms. Barron was abducted by two juveniles from her employer’s parking lot. This was the parking lot the security company was paid to secure. The delinquents abducted her, threatened to kill her and assaulted her while driving her car around. Their activities ended when they eventually wrecked Ms. Barron’s vehicle. Fortunately, Ms. Barron lived to tell her story.
Ms. Barron sued several folks, including the security company. The security company filed a motion to allow them to be dismissed from the case. This had to have been an interesting argument for the security company’s attorney to make. Let’s see, “Your Honor, this was clearly not a high crime area, after all, they didn’t kill her.” Or maybe, “Your Honor, my client is a security company and therefore, clearly had no duty to protect anyone.”
For some reason, the trial court judge bought their argument and let them out of the case. Ms. Barron, rightly so, was having none of that and she appealed the trial court’s decision. She won, as she should have, based on the McClung case.
What’s this tell us? If your business is in a high crime area, take the appropriate measures to make sure your customers and employees will have a chance to frequent your business again.
Posted in Criminal Law, Injury Law, Business Law | No Comments »