By John J. Megjugorac

New Jersey Courts have long recognized that commercial defendants have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect customers, tenants and other persons on their premises from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties.  Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Security, 1856 N.J. 100 (2005); Butler v. Acme Markets, Inc., 89 N.J. 270 (1982).  Courts have extended that duty to any parking lots associated with the commercial entity’s premises.  Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermkts., 149 N.J. 496 (1991).

In determining whether a criminal act was foreseeable, courts will look to see whether prior similar acts have occurred.  However, proof of prior similar acts is not necessary for demonstrating foreseeability.   Courts will also look to the totality of the circumstances in determining foreseeability.  Clohesy, supra at 507.

A residential landowner also may be liable for a plaintiff’s injuries arising out of the criminal acts of third parties.  In that type of case, courts will look at the surrounding neighborhood and any prior similar acts in the area to determine whether the criminal act was foreseeable.  Trentacost v. Brussel, 82 N.J. 214 (1980).

Cases centered on a lack of security theory often involve critical details that can drastically affect the ability of an injured plaintiff to recover money from the defendant landowner.

At the Ginarte Law Firm, our attorneys have the knowledge and experience to investigate and litigate your personal injury claim.  If you have been involved in an accident, please call our toll free number at 1-888-GINARTE or use our online contact form.  Let our expertise work for you.