Responsibility for Violent Crimes in SoCal

The good old days of safe streets in Los Angeles are over. After violent crime hit a 50-year low in 2014, rates of homicides, rapes, and aggravated assaults surged again in 2021. Officials have pointed to liberal gun possession laws and negligent property owners as contributing factors.
This post focuses not on blaming society but on the individuals responsible for violent acts and how victims can seek compensation.

Who Bears Responsibility for Violent Crimes?

While individuals are held accountable in criminal courts, these proceedings do not provide compensation to victims. Victims of violent crimes often face physical and emotional wounds that require legal claims to address. Personal injury attorneys in Los Angeles can pursue compensation by filing negligence claims against liable property owners.

Understanding the Legal Obligations of Property Owners

California law mandates that property owners must keep their premises reasonably safe for guests, including providing adequate security. Failing to do so can lead to liability for injuries caused by crimes on their property.

The Four Elements of Negligence in Security Cases

Duty of Care:Property owners must ensure safety based on factors such as property type, location, and known risks.
Breach of Duty:Examples of breaches include:
Burned-out lights
Non-working gates
Inadequate security personnel
Causation:Victims must prove that negligent security encouraged criminal activity.
Damages:Generally, a physical injury must result from the incident. In some cases, emotional distress claims may also apply.

How Negligence is Established Without Direct Evidence

Many violent crimes occur without witnesses, especially if security measures, such as cameras, are faulty. California allows jurors to infer negligence from circumstantial evidence, such as a poorly lit area where a crime occurred.

Defenses Property Owners May Use

Property owners and their insurance companies often defend themselves with arguments such as comparative fault and assumption of risk.
Comparative Fault
This defense argues that the victim was partially responsible for the crime. For example:
Scenario: If Sara parks in a poorly lit area instead of a well-lit one.
Rebuttal: Sara may argue that the safer spot was too far from her entrance, making the risk of parking further even higher.
In California, even if the victim is partially at fault, the property owner must pay damages proportional to their responsibility.
Assumption of Risk
If a victim signed a waiver assuming risks, the property owner might argue this as a complete defense. However, most such waivers are unenforceable, especially if they were mandatory and not voluntarily agreed upon.

Proving Foreseeability in Violent Crime Cases

For property owners to be held liable, the crime must have been foreseeable. Evidence of foreseeability includes:
Prior similar incidents in the area
High neighborhood crime rates
The nature of the property, such as cash-heavy businesses or poorly maintained apartment complexes
Attorneys must prove foreseeability and all negligence elements by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not that the owner’s negligence contributed to the crime.

Seek Justice and Compensation

Victims of violent crimes deserve justice and financial support to rebuild their lives. If you’ve been a victim, contact the Law Offices of Eslamboly Hakim – Attorneys for a free consultation. We do not charge upfront legal fees in these cases.