Florida’s HB 837 introduces specific provisions aimed at creating a presumption against negligence in certain circumstances. This presumption is designed to protect businesses and property owners from liability under specific conditions, shifting the burden of proof to plaintiffs. Here’s a detailed look at the key aspects of these requirements:
Presumption Against Negligence: Key Provisions
1. Premises Liability for Criminal Acts: One of the most significant changes under HB 837 is the introduction of a presumption against negligence for property owners in premises liability cases involving criminal acts committed by third parties. Property owners can avoid liability for criminal acts that occur on their property if they meet specific security requirements. These requirements include:
- Installing security camera systems at points of entry and exits that record and maintain footage for 30 days.
- Employing trained security personnel during business hours.
- Implementing adequate lighting in parking lots and common areas.
- Locking gates and points of entry that require key or fob access, including common areas such as pools, gyms and laundry rooms.
By meeting these criteria, property owners can establish a presumption that they took reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their premises, thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to prove negligence.
2. Limitations on Liability for Certain Businesses: The law also provides a presumption against negligence for certain businesses, such as convenience stores, if they implement specific security measures. These measures might include:
- Maintaining clear visibility into and out of the store.
- Utilizing drop safes to minimize cash on hand.
- Training employees on proper security procedures.
- Placing height markers at exits to assist in identifying suspects.
By adhering to these guidelines, these businesses can create a legal presumption that they have taken adequate precautions to prevent criminal activity, making it harder for plaintiffs to succeed in claims alleging negligence.
Impact on Litigation
The introduction of presumptions against negligence under HB 837 significantly impacts the litigation landscape in Florida:
- Burden of Proof Shift: Plaintiffs now face a higher burden of proof in premises liability cases involving third-party criminal acts. They must provide compelling evidence to overcome the presumption that property owners or businesses were not negligent.
- Encouraging Proactive Measures: The law incentivizes property owners and businesses to implement robust security measures to benefit from the presumption against negligence. This could lead to increased investments in security infrastructure and employee training.
- Potential Reduction in Litigation: By making it more challenging for plaintiffs to establish negligence, the law may lead to a reduction in the number of premises liability lawsuits. This is seen as a way to curb frivolous litigation and reduce legal costs for businesses.
Controversy and Criticism
While supporters of HB 837 argue that it promotes a safer environment by encouraging proactive security measures, critics contend that it disproportionately protects businesses at the expense of individuals harmed by criminal acts. Some concerns include:
- Access to Justice: Critics argue that the law makes it more difficult for victims of crime to seek justice and compensation, particularly in cases where property owners have met the minimum security requirements but incidents still occur.
- Potential for Inequity: There is a concern that the presumption against negligence could lead to inequitable outcomes, with businesses and property owners being shielded from liability even in situations where their actions or inactions contributed to unsafe conditions.
Conclusion
Florida’s HB 837 introduces significant changes to the state’s tort law by establishing a presumption against negligence for property owners and certain businesses that implement specific security measures. While this aims to encourage better safety practices and reduce litigation, it also raises important questions about access to justice and the balance between protecting businesses and ensuring accountability. As these provisions take effect, their impact on both security practices and legal outcomes will be closely monitored and debated.
