Below is an example Atlanta negligent security lawsuit.
Negligent security claims arise when an individual is injured on another person’s property due to inadequate security measures, creating an environment where criminal activity can occur. In Atlanta, Georgia, property owners have a legal obligation to ensure that their premises are reasonably safe and secure, taking into account foreseeable risks to visitors and tenants.
This duty includes includes having proper lighting, security personnel, surveillance cameras, and other security measures to deter crime. A failure to implement or maintain these measures may result in legal liability if someone is harmed as a result.
In the following example negligent security complaint, an Atlanta resident was killed after a violent assault on the defendant’s commercial property. Despite being aware of multiple previous incidents of crime in the vicinity, the defendant allegedly failed to take reasonable steps to enhance security or warn visitors of potential risks.
This alleged negligence in maintaining the property’s security forms the basis of the complaint, with the plaintiff seeking compensation for physical injuries, emotional distress, medical expenses, and other associated damages.
The legal principles involved in this case draw from Georgia’s premises liability laws and will be detailed in the ensuing sections of the complaint.
- Negligent security lawsuits in Georgia
- Key 2023 negligent security appellate opinion from Georgia Supreme Court
- Another sample negligent security lawsuit
Example Atlanta Negligent Security Lawsuit
IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY, STATE OF GEORGIA
JANE DOE, as natural guardian of JESSICA DOE, the sole heir to, and JENNIFER DOE, as the County Administrator of, the Estate of JOHN DOE, deceased,
MAPLE DINOCO, LLC, a domestic limited liability company,
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.83D3938
COME NOW Plaintiffs and hereby file this Complaint as follows:
- On or about May 16, 2021, John Doe was shot and killed while an invitee on the premises known as the Maple Dinoco gas station (hereinafter the “Premises” or the “Dinoco”), located at 3521 Maple Lane, Brookhaven, DeKalb County, Georgia.
- Mr. Doe, who was born, raised and lived in Atlanta died intestate and is survived by his minor child, Jessica Doe, and the biological mother of his Jane Doe.
- Plaintiff Jane Doe is the natural guardian of John’s minor child, Jessica.
- Plaintiff Jane Doe has the right to bring this wrongful death claim as the natural guardian of Jessica Doe.
- Plaintiff Jennifer A. Doe is the Court-appointed County Administrator of the Estate of John Doe, and has the right to bring the estate’s claims.
- Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of the Estate of John Doe, state their intention to bring each and every permissible, proper, and authorized claim for damages under Georgia law, including general, special, compensatory, consequential, economic, punitive and other damages as proven by the evidence at trial. Particularly, Plaintiff, Jane Doe brings a wrongful death claim on behalf of her minor daughter, Jessica Doe—the sole heir—as her natural guardian, and Plaintiff Jennifer A. Doe, as the Administrator of the Estate of John Doe, brings all claims belonging to the Estate of John Doe.
- Further, as the duly appointed County Administrator of the Estate of John Doe, Jennifer A. Doe states her intention and desire to bring each and every permissible, proper, and authorized claim for damages under Georgia law, including personal injury, funeral and burial expenses, medical, pre-impact fright, punitive, and other damages as proven by the evidence at trial.
- Plaintiffs are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
- Defendant Maple Dinoco, LLC (“Maple Dinoco”) is a domestic limited liability company, authorized to transact business in the State of Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. Maple Dinoco may be served with process through its registered agent, Bashiir Omar, 3733 Cherokee Drive, Decatur, DeKalb County, Georgia 30030.
- Jurisdiction and venue are proper as to Maple Dinoco and Maple Dinoco has been properly served with sufficient process in this action.
- On information and belief, and at all times material hereto, Defendant Maple Dinoco owned, operated, controlled, and/or managed the Premises. At all times material hereto, Defendant Maple Dinoco and its officers, agents, and employees were involved in the acts and omissions which give rise to this lawsuit and committed tortious acts and omissions in the State of Georgia with respect to the Atlanta gas station known as Dinoco.
- Defendant Maple Dinoco is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and venue is proper in this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 14-2-510 because its acts and/or omissions caused Plaintiffs’ harm in DeKalb County. Defendant Maple Dinoco is further subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because its registered agent and principal office are located in DeKalb County.
- On May 16, 2021, John Doe was Defendant’s invitee and lawfully on the Premises.
- On May 16, 2021, while on the Premises, John Doe was a victim of a violent shooting barrage and was shot with a pistol.
- John did not die immediately. He suffered. He fought for his life. Tragically, John ultimately died from his wounds while receiving excellent emergency medical care.
- It is no secret this gas station is in a dangerous area of Atlanta. During the five years prior to May 16, 2021, there had been numerous reports of incidents of criminal and gang-related activity at the Premises and within in the immediate vicinity of the Premises, including homicides, car jackings, robberies, aggravated assaults, assaults, batteries, shots fired, drug sales, drug usage, and gang-related presence and crime about which Defendants knew or, by the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that this was one of the most dangerous areas of Atlanta.
- With all of these reports of crime in this part of Atlanta and in fact at this very gas station, Maple Dinoco did nothing. No changes were made to the security measures at the Premises following any criminal activity.
- The assailants who shot John Doe were negligently allowed to enter, remain on, and attack the Premises because Defendant failed to implement adequate security measures to prevent individuals like the assailants from entering or attacking the Premises or to deter them from remaining on the Premises.
- Defendant had a duty to provide security policies and procedures for the protection of their invitees, like John Doe.
- Defendant failed to provide adequate security policies and/or security procedures for the protection of invitees, like John Doe.
- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, John Doe sustained serious injuries, endured pain and suffering, and died as a result of being shot on the Premises.
- John Doe was a completely innocent victim who exercised ordinary care and diligence at all times herein and under the circumstances then-existing.
- Defendants breached the duty owed to John Doe by failing to exercise ordinary care to keep the Premises safe.
- Prior to, and on, May 16, 2021, the Premises was negligently repaired, maintained, inspected, secured, patrolled, and managed. Defendant had knowledge, both actual and constructive, of the need to properly repair, maintain, secure, inspect, patrol, and manage said property, but failed to exercise ordinary care to do so.
- Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of violent crimes occurring on and around the Premises prior to the shooting of John Doe.
- Defendant failed to act upon this knowledge and implement security measures to attempt to prevent subsequent similar crimes.
- Prior to the shooting of John Doe, Defendant had actual and constructive knowledge of the need to patrol, secure, inspect, manage, and control access to the Premises and to deter criminal activity from entering or occurring on the Premises; but, failed to exercise ordinary care to do so.
- Defendant negligently failed to warn its invitees, including John Doe, of the existence of the aforementioned criminal activity and the likelihood of further criminal attacks.
- Defendant negligently failed to maintain adequate security devices to permit proper use of the Premises, thereby causing an unreasonable risk of injury to its invitees, including John Doe.
- At all times mentioned herein, Defendant controlled the management of the Premises and had the legal duty to keep the Premises in a state consistent with due regard of the safety of their invitees, including John Doe. Defendant breached said duties and failed to act as similarly situated businesses in like circumstances.
- Prior to John Doe’s death, upon information and belief, Defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the need for any/increased security.
- Defendant failed to provide any increased security.
- Defendant was and is negligent per se for having committed acts or omissions inconsistent with its statutory duty under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1 to keep the Premises and its approaches safe for its invitees, including John Doe.
- Defendant failed to take appropriate action to remedy or reduce the danger to their invitees, including John Doe, and allowed the dangerous environment on the Premises to continue to exist unabated, thereby creating a nuisance.
- Defendant’s negligent acts and omissions proximately caused John Doe’s injuries, pain and suffering, and ultimately his death.
- Because Defendant had knowledge of or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have had knowledge of the dangerous environment of the Premises, Defendant is liable for the negligent supervision, hiring, training, and retention of its employees and agents operating on the premises.
- As a proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, John Doe sustained catastrophic injuries, conscious pain and suffering, and ultimately became aware of his impending death.
- As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs state their intention to seek all special, compensatory, general, incidental, consequential, economic, punitive, and other damages permissible under the laws of the State of Georgia, including but not limited to: personal injuries, all elements of physical and mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, fright, shock, and terror, funeral and burial expenses, all elements, tangible and intangible, of the full value John Doe’s life, consequential damages to be proven at trial, and punitive damages.
- Each of the foregoing acts and omissions constitute an independent act of negligence on the part of Defendant, and one or more, or all of the above-stated acts were the proximate causes of the injuries to, and wrongful death of, John Doe.
- Defendant acted with willful misconduct, malice, fraud, oppression, wantonness, and an entire want of care raising the presumption of a conscience indifference to the consequences. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Jane Doe as the natural guardian of Jessica Doe, and Jennifer Doe as the duly appointed County Administrator of the Estate of John Doe, are entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant, in accordance with the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1.
- Because Defendant’s actions evidence a species of bad faith, were and are stubbornly litigious, and have caused Plaintiffs undue expense, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their necessary expenses of litigation, including an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses required by this action pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, as well as any other statutory or common law basis.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment to be awarded to them and against the Defendant and for the following:
- Process issue and Defendant be served as provided by law;
- Plaintiffs have a trial by jury;
- Plaintiffs be awarded actual damages in amounts to be shown at trial from Defendant;
- Plaintiff Jane Doe, as natural guardian of Jessica Doe, be awarded the full value of John Doe’s life pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-4-1 et seq.;
- Plaintiff Jennifer A. Doe, as County Administrator of the Estate of John Doe, be awarded all proper damages owned by the Estate, including punitive damages, and damages for personal injury, pain and suffering, and/or funeral expenses, in accordance with the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury;
- Plaintiffs be awarded all general, special, compensatory, economic, punitive, and other allowable damages in accordance with the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury from Defendant and as permitted under Georgia law;
- Plaintiffs be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation in an amount which will be proven through the evidence at the time of trial; plaintiffs be awarded interest and costs; and,
- Plaintiffs be awarded such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.