Foreseeability and the prior similar incidents rule

At the same time that the special relationships concept was being expanded to include landlords and tenants, courts were also creating significant defenses for the growing number of potential defendants. The most significant limitation on liability imposed by American case law was the concept of foresee-ability, i.e., no property owner could be held liable for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent a crime unless that crime was foreseeable.

To eliminate the ambiguity of foreseeability and incorporate a standard that judges could automatically apply, early cases developed the notion that a crime was not foreseeable unless it had occurred at the particular premises before. This outdated rule became known as the "prior similar incidents rule." If a plaintiff could not demonstrate that there had been a prior similar incident to the crime in question, the court would then rule, as a matter of law, that the crime was not foreseeable, and the case would be dismissed.

The use of the prior similar incidents rule, in an effort to achieve a standard, in reality simply created more diverse interpretations and decisions. The predictability and objectivity that had been expected to evolve from early cases proved to be elusive, and case law developed an almost incomprehensible patchwork of decisions. In addition, courts became highly critical of the concept at its core: As the Idaho Supreme Court noted, the prior similar incidents rule had the effect of being a "one free rape rule."

see also:

English Common Law Premises Liability Lawsuit History - Get your FREE Case Evaluation
Premises Liability Lawsuit History: Crime victims sue property owners.

Special Relationships Premises Liability Lawsuit History - Get your FREE Case Evaluation
Premises Liability Lawsuit History: Crime victims sue property owners.

Premises Liability case overview Premises Liability - Get your FREE Case Evaluation
An overview of Premises Liability Cases. Find out if you have a case.