BUDDEN & ASSOCIATES
  • HOME
  • WHO WE ARE
  • MEDIA COVERAGE
    • MOUNT CASHEL
    • MUSKRAT FALLS: INQUIRY
    • MUSKRAT FALLS: JUSTIN BRAKE
    • ABUSE LITIGATION
    • PUBLIC POLICY/PUBLIC JUSTICE
    • CRIMINAL
    • ELECTION: SPECIAL BALLOTS
    • ALL MEDIA COVERAGE
  • MEDIA RELEASES
  • WHO WE SUPPORT
  • OUR BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • HOME
  • WHO WE ARE
  • MEDIA COVERAGE
    • MOUNT CASHEL
    • MUSKRAT FALLS: INQUIRY
    • MUSKRAT FALLS: JUSTIN BRAKE
    • ABUSE LITIGATION
    • PUBLIC POLICY/PUBLIC JUSTICE
    • CRIMINAL
    • ELECTION: SPECIAL BALLOTS
    • ALL MEDIA COVERAGE
  • MEDIA RELEASES
  • WHO WE SUPPORT
  • OUR BLOG
  • CONTACT US
Search by typing & pressing enter

YOUR CART

​OUR BLOG

Thoughts from our team 

9/4/2019

...... And Justice for All

Using Civil Laws to Compensate Innocent Victims of Violent Crimes
Negligent security occurs when a business has reason to know that specific reasonable security steps would deter crimes and keep both employees and patrons safe. If they fail to take those precautions, and people are harmed as a result of a foreseeable and preventable crime, they can be sued for their negligence.
 
Negligent security tends to occur in areas such as bars, public transportation, and banks/ATMs. For example, in 2015, an armed robbery took place at a popular hotel's bar in St. John's, which left one person dead. During this time, the bar area of the hotel did not have proper security measures in place, and it was a known area for heavy drinkers. The bar should have known that violent crime was likely to occur and having the proper security measures in place could have prevented the crime.
 
Similarly, in McAllister v Calgary (city), 2019 ABCA 214, a violent crime took place on New Year's Eve in 2007, due to the lack of proper security. In this particular case, Kyle and Chelsea were walking across the overpass to the C-Train station when two men attacked Kyle. The attack lasted about 20 minutes, and no security officers saw the attack. The C-Train Station had 42 video surveillance cameras in the adjacent area of the assault and was monitored by only two employees on New Year's Eve. As well, there were only 46 Protective Service Officers on duty from 10 pm to 12:45 am. After 12:45 am only two officers were left on duty at the C-Train Station.
 
Furthermore, on this night, Calgary Transit had a "no fare" policy in place to discourage people from drinking and driving. The C-Train Station should have known that the possibility of a crime occurring was not unforeseeable for the following reasons:

  1. There is an increase in the number of people out celebrating New Year's Eve as opposed to the number of people out on a regular weekend
  2. New Year's Eve is typically celebrated under the influence of alcohol
  3. A "no fare" policy in place as an incentive for people to use the C-Train Station would likely increase the number of individuals typically using the trains at night
 
The C-Train station could have prevented the length of the violent attack on Kyle or deterred the crime from occurring if the proper security measures had been in place.
​
Businesses must take the necessary security measures to ensure that both employees and consumers are protected when entering their organization or using their service, especially when there is reason to believe a crime is likely to occur. If you have been injured by a criminal and think it could have been prevented, call us at 709-576-0077. 

-Will Hiscock

Comments are closed.
​The content provided on this website is intended to provide information on Budden & Associates, our lawyers and recent developments in the law. Articles, blog posts, comments and other information on our website are not intended to be legal advice, may not be up to date and do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and Budden & Associates. If you require legal advice, please consult with one of our lawyers directly.