Introduction
Negligence in business is basically the failure to comply with reasonable care and act in a manner that is inconsistent with what is commonly held reasonable activities. Whenever a business is operating out of the normal procedures consequently causing harm and discomfort to the surrounding public, the situation can be seen as negligence. In his article, Schmedlen gives a very good example of an instance where premise negligence has caused trouble for a company (Schmedlen, 2011). In his case, an employer was shot dead by her boyfriend and later on, the boyfriend took his own life. However, before he died, the boyfriend left a complaining note about the company’s inability to protect his girlfriend from him. He noted and complained about the poor security measures employed by the company and demanded in his note that his children should be compensated for the loss caused by the company’s negligence which ended up causing their mother’s death.
Main text
In such a case, the premise liability is viable since it was the premise owner’s responsibility to ensure the safety of his or her own employees. Businesses have become easy targets of plaintiffs considering the fact that nowadays jury awards have become a very steep price to pay (Schmedlen, 2011). Businesses face numerous lawsuits due to premises liability. Taking into account that this is a challenging and difficult issue to handle, businesses are forced to compose measures to fight back this trend which in some instances has been used by people to secure financial gain. Like the case in Schmedlen’s article, the man took advantage of his relationship with an employee and passed through the security detail. This is quite challenging especially when the person in question has a close relationship with an employee.
Nonetheless, whether the damage was done by a close relative or a fellow workmate, the business is liable to the loss because it has happened on its premises. This incident despite it being an extraordinary occurrence is a wake-up call to property owners to check on their premise’s security and treat every person equally in respect to maintaining security. The fact that the above-mentioned lady was killed in the company’s premises tells a lot about the security measures effected in the company. The plaintiff would ask, how did the perpetrator manage to sneak a gun inside the premises? Such a case would not have happened if the security was effective.
Victims of such an incident are entitled to damages compensation to cover their losses and injuries. This is counted as the premises’ cost for not putting in place measures to avert such an incidence. Premise owners must always make sure their premises are well maintained and properly checked from time to time so that they do not pose danger to the public or people living in them. This is important for saving the owners’ premises cost in compensating casualties in case of an accident. Unfortunately, the responsibility lays squarely in the hands of the premises’ owners, and in case of an accident, the law is clear on this (Schmedlen, 2011). There are public policies that advocate for businesses to have full knowledge of possible risks in their property and premises as well as to be able to counter the effect posed by any possible risk. Consequently, businesses must have enough resources to be able to compensate victims in case of injuries occur.
Reference
Schmedlen, R. H. (2011). Heading off the Liability Headache. Journal of Premises Liability.3 (5), 1-2.