Inadequate Security Lawsuit: What You Need To Know

A negligent security lawsuit, also referred to as a negligent security case, holds property owners responsible for failing to take reasonable steps necessary to protect visitors or tenants from foreseeable harm. Whether it is a violent assault in a poorly lit parking lot or a theft because of a broken security system, negligent property management can result in permanent physical and emotional scarring. The Las Vegas negligent security attorneys at Cloward Trial Lawyers understand the severity of these situations and work diligently with the victim to secure justice in the form of fair compensation for injuries.

Contact a Las Vegas Negligent Security Lawyer

Schedule a consultation call us now

Elements to Prove Negligent Security

It shall constitute negligence when the property owner has failed to act within his legal duty with respect to providing adequate security. Each of these elements of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages – is a necessary ingredient that must be established in every successful claim.

Establishing a Duty of Care

According to the Nevada State Bar Association, premises liability requires owners to identify risks and take reasonable precautions to minimize those risks. For example, a shopping mall owner should recognize that parking lots are sufficiently lighted and patrolled regularly if the crime rate is considered high. If they fail to uphold this duty, they can also be held liable for injuries caused by criminal activity.

Demonstrating negligence in security cases largely depends on showing that the risk was foreseeable and that appropriate precautions were not taken. Property owners have a duty to anticipate potential dangers within reason and to implement practical safety measures to protect individuals lawfully on the premises.

Breach of Duty and Foreseeability

To establish negligence, one has to prove that the landowner breached his duty of care by failing to take steps to address foreseeable hazards. The foreseeability means whether a reasonable man, in the given circumstances, could contemplate the likelihood of damage or injury.

For example, if a nightclub in a high-crime neighborhood fails to employ adequate security personnel, it would be reasonably foreseeable that an violent altercation could occur. This breach of duty is going to be the hallmark of this lawsuit.

Causation and Damages

Finally, the plaintiff has to prove that his or her injuries were the direct result of the carelessness of the property owner; the injuries caused compensable damages, such as all medical bills, lost wages, emotional trauma, and such.

Comparative Negligence in Nevada

Understanding comparative negligence is essential when pursuing a security negligence lawsuit in Nevada. This legal principle determines how compensation is awarded when both the injured party and the defendant share some responsibility for the incident. Under NRS 41.141, an injured person can still recover damages—as long as their share of fault does not exceed 50%.

In practical terms, this means the court will evaluate each party’s role in what happened. For example, if a jury decides the victim was 25% at fault for ignoring a posted warning sign, and the property owner was 75% at fault for failing to provide adequate security, the victim’s final compensation would be reduced by 25%. However, if the victim is found to be 51% or more responsible, they are legally barred from recovering any damages. This rule highlights the importance of strong legal representation to protect your rights and limit unfair blame.

Learn more about Cloward Trial Lawyers Top Negligent Security Case: $38 Million Verdict for Negligent Security: A Nevada Milestone

Contact a Negligent Security Lawyer in Las Vegas

At Cloward Trial Lawyers, we advocate for victims’ rights in negligent security cases. Call today for a free consultation with our experienced professionals and start seeking the justice you deserve.