The Story Of Our Firm | En Español
 Home    Lawyers   Litigation   Why Choose Us?   Results   Search

Accident Lawyer Injuries On Property/Premises Research Center Learn More

Shopping Malls

in this section: Convenience Stores | Shopping Malls | Apartment Buildings


Bookmark This Page Print This Page Email This Page

Example Premises Liability Cases: Shopping centers and malls

In premises liability cases involving shopping centers and malls, environmental design is relevant in several ways. First, there is the design of the malls themselves and the image they project of being modern fortresses--organized, controlled, and protected from wind and rain. To a shopper, this can mean a promise of safety, a place where one can relax and not be on guard.

Criminals recognize the opportunity malls present in terms of available cash and merchandise, both from the customers and the retailers. CPTED is critical to how retailers protect their merchandise and protect their customers from becoming victims of crime.

For example, a large regional shopping mall, with over 1.2 million square feet, had grown over the years from its original small, rectangular structure. Various asymmetrical sections had been built out into the parking lot; as a result, security guards could only see a small portion of the lot at any given time because sight lines were obstructed by the various expansions. In addition, as is customary in large shopping centers, most of the walls were solid, preventing shoppers and store employees from being able to view the parking lot. This is known as the "fortress effect," which limits the ability of people inside the mall to perform natural surveillance.

In addition to these physical characteristics, the lighting system at the mall had not been upgraded in some sections of the parking lot since the mall was first built in the late 1960's. As a result, the light poles in some areas were shorter than in other areas, and the fixtures in place employed an older, now-discontinued type of low-pressure sodium lighting. In addition to being essentially monochromatic, low-pressure sodium lights degrade very quickly, losing as much as 75 percent of their lighting ability in the first 25 percent of their life cycle.

One winter evening, two young women were abducted at gunpoint from one of the sections of the parking lot that had not had its lighting upgraded. At the time of the incident, several of the lights in the area were burned out and the remaining lights had been in place for a long time, resulting in substantially degraded lighting output. As a result, many sections of the parking lot had lighting below the recommended minimums of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, including some areas where the lighting was below the minimum amount needed for human beings to discern movement or objects. All of these environmental design factors were alleged by the plaintiffs to have contributed to the perpetrator's selection of that particular location to commit his crime. (See "Dim Lights and Liability" for another example of lighting and legal issues.)

Another premises liability case involved a woman who was attacked while opening the trunk of her car in a mall garage by three girls with baseball bats. Case investigation revealed that the assailants had been parked nearby for over one-half hour. Their car had been parked with the front pointing outward for improved observation of shoppers returning to their cars. It was also discovered that earlier in the day, the assailants had been chased from another mall by a guard who questioned them about their suspicious behavior.

The mall's security program had several deficiencies that contributed to the event and caused this case to be settled before trial. The mall's recordkeeping was inadequate, and it was established that mall management was unaware of the level of criminal activity on its premises. It was also established that management could not verify guard compliance to assigned patrols.

In general, mall cases in which juries find for the victim usually involve a combination of deficiencies that include inadequacies in the security guard service and mall policies as well as in design and environmental issues.

'
see also:

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

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

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


Name Phone Email
Do you have a legal question? Ask us!   strictly confidential
Your Question

Click here
for a free case review



$53 million verdict — brake mechanic suffering from mesothelioma

$13.5 million verdict — one of the very first Vioxx trial cases

$15 million settlement — man wound up a paraplegic due to negligent hospital care

$37 million verdict — 2 asbestos lung cancer plaintiffs

$47 million verdict — boilermaker who died from mesothelioma

$75 million verdict — historic consolidated trial involving men who had worked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in the 1940s and 1950s

$12.7 million verdict — iron worker who was injured due to unsafe working conditions

$64.65 million award — 4 asbestos plaintiffs

$17.5 million — consolidated trial of 5 mesothelioma victims

$25 million jury verdict — brake reliner

$5.8 million settlement — failure to perform timely C-Section

$30 million verdict — 7 former power-plant workers suffering from asbestos-related illnesses

$6 million settlement — pediatric malpractice case

$14 million consolidated verdict — 5 asbestos-related cancer suits: shipyards/powerhouses/construction

$8 million settlement — obstetrical malpractice resulted in neurological deficits

$3.5 million — 2 asbestos exposure cases

$600,000 settlement — motor vehicle negligence resulting in serious injury

$44 million verdict — 5 asbestos cases, including $11.6 million awarded to widow of sheet metal worker who died of mesothelioma

$1.6 million settlement — suicide after premature hospital discharge

$2.6 million settlement — ill-fitting prosthesis caused decubitus ulcers

$1.5 million settlement — construction worker fell off elevated train tracks

$750,000 settlement — defective construction equipment resulted in serious injury to worker



Ask a Free Question:
Were you injured?

check for your response [login]
For legal help anywhere in the U.S.
A nationally-recognized personal injury law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg is committed to helping clients win cases, get the compensation to which they’re entitled and continue with their lives. In just over 20 years, we’ve collected more than $1.3 billion for plaintiffs.