Former Special Agents for the FBI, former CIA, decorated Soldiers, medical doctors with illustrative careers. These are the individuals who make up the field of experts. Their resumes can be impressive and most often, they present well to a jury. Unfortunately for you, they are experienced, well composed, and generally speaking, very cunning. Although it seems as though you are fighting a lost battle, it is accepting this realization that will help you the most in defeating the expert.
In terms of the negligent security expert, he/she will undoubtedly say it…“This crime was unforeseeable and unpreventable because the offender could not have been deterred.” You could have a thousand armed robberies and twenty murders, but someone will sit across from you in a chair or on the stand and tell you it was unforeseeable and unpreventable. As frustrating as that reality might seem, you should be grateful for having the knowledge of what the defense negligent security expert is going to say. How you will use the statement against them is where your attack becomes most effective.
The best way to select your cutlery is by identifying which area of expertise the defense listed the expert. The foreseeability expert will rely on certain evidence and the preventability expert will rely on different evidence. At this point, you have amassed information from building your liability case and conducting research on your expert. It is now time to select the appropriate materials to use against them.
The foreseeability expert traditionally relies upon the past criminal history of the property, the level of crime in and around the area, and the types of crimes occurring on the property. As general as those topics appear to be, it boils down to what threshold the expert requires in order to determine if the crime against your client was foreseeable. The threshold is something that will fluctuate depending on which side the expert testifies. If he is testifying for the plaintiff, he will testify that it does not matter if a targeted crime occurred because a robbery is a robbery or a murder is a murder. If the expert is testifying for the defense, then it makes all the difference whether the robbery was a drug deal gone bad or a targeted murder. Knowing the expert will switch back and forth, you must determine if you are going to “gut” the expert right off the bat, or give them a thousand tiny “cuts.”
For example, we deposed a defense security expert in a case involving a convenience store. It just so happens we had used this expert six months prior on a similar case involving a robbery at a gas station/convenience store. After the introductory questions, I used the “gut” method. I directly asked if he testified six months prior whether or not the defendant should have had an armed security guard. He faltered and stuttered, trying to give an explanation on his contradictory opinions. On our particular property we had at least seven robberies against the defendants customers, and at least four or five more they were made aware of by way of the customer retreating back to their establishment. The case the expert testified in for us six months ago had five previous robberies. We knew he had just made the same argument for us that he was now attempting to say was incorrect.
A little while later, I decided to employ the “cut” method by asking him about the relevance of the crime grids for the property. He replied that he relies on police reports for the actual property, so I “cut” him with his prior testimony where he relied on grime grids heavily because there were only a handful of police reports for crime on the property. The difference between the two techniques lies in how you administer the questioning. The former question was after he revealed his opinions in the case. The latter questioning was by way of leading him into a trap. The “cut” technique is accomplished by getting the expert to commit to a particular methodology or particular statement, allowing them to feel comfortable by giving their opinion(s), and then “cutting” them question by question during the deposition with all the contradictory testimony in your possession.
Later today, we will once again be honored to stand with our client, Manuel Oliver, the father of 17 year old Parkland mass shooting victim Joaquin Oliver. Only days after the Oliver family accepted the high school graduation diploma for their late son, NBC’s Today Show aired part one of an interview with Former Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson who was the school resource officer assigned to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on the day a gun killed 17 people and injured 17 more.
Today’s press conference with Mr. Oliver will be to give reaction to that NBC network television interview. click to watch Today Show interview
Press Conference Details
What: Press Conference to respond to part one of Today Show Interview with FMR BSO Deputy Scot Peterson
By: Michael Haggard (Bio) and Christopher Marlowe (Bio), The Haggard Law Firm
Negligent security cases are time consuming, very costly, require a hyper attention to detail, a team effort and knowledge of foreseeability, and in many cases criminal law and a ‘typical’ negligent security case does not and will not ever exist. Our firm has handled hundreds of these cases over the years and have obtained more than $400 million in results for our clients. We can most affirmatively say the immense challenges of these cases are outweighed by the results that can help bring justice to a victim or family that the criminal justice system may never be able to provide, while also changing the way a business or entire industry operates.
In a wrongful death car accident case, we all know to preserve evidence, request the relevant reports, statements and traffic homicide reports. We contact the witnesses tied to this particular moment in time, hound law enforcement and medical examiners to make sure we have all evidence tied to the incident, and begin working these pieces into the theory we hope will increase the probability of success at the end of the case. While this basic and incomplete framework is an important part of a negligent security case as well, it does not account for the historical analysis necessary to place the subject incident in the perspective necessary to appreciate which theory is best, and why.
Power of Foreseeability: $100 million verdict
Like any of the most complicated areas of practice there are multiple layers to consider when litigating a negligent security case. Foreseeability of the act in question, most often a crime, is the first element of the case to consider. For example, it is good to know whether a particular shooting or sexual assault occurred in the common area of an apartment complex, over which the owner or manager had exclusive control. It is important to know whether there is a history of any such activity upon the Premises, and in the areas adjacent or related thereto. There is a history of cases where the Plaintiff counsel assumes that because the crime does not appear to be a “hit” and because the crime on the property is “bad” that their case is a winner. Some of the most common arguments by defense council are tied to the character of the victim or because the area may have a high crime rate there isn’t much the property owner could have done to stop the incident that caused the death or harm of your client. In most states, neither argument has much merit because of the statutes that lay out the responsibility of the property owner to take reasonable measures to protect all guests, residents or customers on a commercial property from harm. In November 2007, we successfully obtained a $102.7 million verdict in a negligent security shooting case thought to be the largest verdict of its kind in the country. We represented a patron of an exotic dance club. Our client sat waiting in his car for his friend to return from retrieving his wallet when he was approached by an unknown person who attempted to rob him at gunpoint. The assailant shot our young client. The bullets rendered him a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic. The jury found that the strip mall where the club was located did not have sufficient security, as there was only one guard on duty. The strip mall’s ownership admitted they had never spent one dollar on security or safety despite the fact there were 26 violent crimes on the same property during the seven years prior to the shooting of our client. Video on Case
Injured or lost a love one on the property of a business, apartment complex or hotel? We want to hear your story, click here or call 305.446.5700
According to WTVJ-TV in Miami, police have charged a local man who they say “pimped a teenage girl out of a Hialeah hotel” while the suspect was already in jail on a separate charge.
42-year-old Edward Lee was arrested on charges that included: human trafficking and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. By law, forcing any minor to have sex is considered human trafficking.
Trial lawyer Todd Michaels of The Haggard Law Firm said “For too long, human trafficking has been ignored. After drug dealing, it is the second most committed criminal act in the world. The horrors that the victims face are beyond comprehension—forced prostitution, slavery, and other forms of torture with no escape.” (Todd Michaels Bio)
The NBC television affiliate reported “According to a police report, Lee kept communication with his girlfriend while he was behind bars and ordered her to force the 14-year-old victim into prostitution out of the hotel off Okeechobee Road in May of that year – instructing her to keep the teen inside the hotel room since she was a runaway.” Police say the teen had sex with 6 men in one day.
Haggard Law, which has litigated against hotels/motels in a variety of premises liability and negligent security cases for more than a decade, is focused on bringing more attention to how commercial businesses play a key role in combating the tragedy of trafficking. Those businesses who do not take responsibility and don’t take active roles in combating trafficking should be held responsible.
Michaels says, “the great enabler for all of these crimes are the commercial premises—hotels, strip malls, apartment buildings—that turn a blind eye to these horrific acts happening right under their noses. Every commercial property owner has a legal duty to act when these crimes are happening on their premises. It is time to start holding those who willfully turn a blind eye responsible.”
Hotels and Motels are Top Targets of Operations For Traffickers
Motels and hotels are considered ideal locations for sex traffickers to operate their heartless and vicious operation. Experts say it is because traffickers are capitalizing on the lack of awareness around this issue within the hotel industry. All too often, they continue to exploit their victims unchecked because staff, managers, and executives do not know what to look for.
Lack of awareness is not a true excuse anymore. Hospitality associations, law enforcement, the federal government and more have discussed the issue in the media and offer training on what the signs are of possible human trafficking at a motel or hotel.
In January Marriott Hotels made human trafficking training mandatory for all associates and developed training tailored to the specific roles on its properties. Over 225,000 associates completed the training this in 2017. It’s a training that has continued in 2018. Haggard Law is confident that if the general knowledge and action taken by some in the industry is not enough to motivate all commercial businesses to become active in the fight against sex trafficking, then premises liability or negligent security civil action will become a new motivating factor.
VIDEO: Haggard Law Firm Managing Partner and Trial Lawyer Michael Haggard is the current President of the National Crime Victim Bar Association. In this video, Haggard discusses shares that human trafficking is at the top of his agenda during his term.
Miami Dade County, FL – A gunshot victim who had his kidney, portions of his intestines removed and his colon perforated settles a negligent security lawsuit against northwest Miami apartment complex for $3 million.
On May 3rd, 2014, Dennis Gore and his friend worked together cleaning one of their clients’ business’. After work, Dennis and his friend played flag football and then went to Dennis’ mother’s apartment at Suncoast Apartments (999 NE 167th Street). Dennis would ask his friend to take him to Walgreen’s to get an ace bandage because of a sore knee.
The two of them went downstairs to Dennis’s friend’s car in the parking lot when Dennis realized that he left his wallet upstairs. He told his friend to meet him around the other side off 10th avenue while Dennis went back upstairs to get his wallet. After retrieving his wallet, he took the stairs to a door led directly into the parking lot when his friend to pick him up.
A man standing at the bottom of those stairs simply said “hey”, which made Dennis turn around. The man was brandishing a gun. Dennis attempted to evade the stranger but was met by a second man who tried to grab him. After breaking free and attempting to exit through a doorway, bullets began to fly. He was shot 6 times. Dennis was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital where he went into emergency surgery.
Haggard Law Trial Attorney Jason Brenner – CONTACT BRENNER – JRB@haggadlawfirm.com
Haggard Law Firm Trial attorney Jason Brenner and Douglas McCarron litigated the case. Brenner says while the apartment complex did have security in place, it was not sufficient considering the level of crime in the area. The claims made in the case were past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering. “May 3rd was the beginning of a nightmare that Mr. Gore will never wake up from and it may have been prevented if this apartment complex had fully committed to providing the level of security needed to protect residents and guests.”
Haggard Law Trial Attorney Douglas McCarron – CONTACT MCCARRON – DJM@haggardlawfirm.com
The Haggard Law Firm has an extensive history of litigating negligent security cases involving apartment complexes, hotels, motels, gas stations and other commercial businesses. Over the last ten years, Haggard Law Trial Attorneys have obtained more than $400 million in results for clients severely injured or the families of those killed due to a property owner or managers negligence.
CONTACT HAGGARD LAW FIRM 305.446.5700
VIDEO: What is the first step in a negligent security case??
Bronze EAGLE recipients are those members who go to great lengths by contributing time and money to the EAGLE cause which aims to provide resources to power FJA’s mission of:
defending civil justice at the Capitol and promote lasting and meaningful reforms to protect injured victims,
to preserve the safety of Florida’s consumers,
and to ensure the continued success of your practice for years to come.
Bronze EAGLE Award recipients have been very involved in EAGLE over the years and continue to be active in EAGLE.
When asked by the FJA what the FJA and EAGLE program meant to him, Michaels responded “When it comes to protecting the rights of the injured, the aggrieved, and the voiceless, there is no more important organization than the Florida Justice Association. The EAGLE program ensures FJA’s staff and leadership remain focused on protecting our practices and the rights of our clients without distraction.” Michaels has been an active member of the FJA since September of 2009.
He will receive the honor during the FJA’s Presidential Luncheon on Friday June 22, 2018 at The Breakers in Palm Beach.
The Haggard Law Firm has been recognized by TopVerdict for notable results in 2017. TopVerdict recognizes U.S. law firms and attorneys who have obtained one of the highest jury verdicts, settlements, court or arbitration awards in the Nation or an individual State, in a particular area of law, and year
The $12 million verdict obtained by Haggard Law in Machado v Waves of Hialeah was named by TopVerdict as the number one inadequate security (negligent security) verdict and third highest premises liability verdict in Florida in 2017. The negligent security, wrongful death case was litigated by our Christopher Marlowe, Jason Brenner, James Blecke and co-counsel Alexis Izquierdo, ESQ.
This is the second straight year Haggard Law has earned the #1 Inadequate Security verdict recognition. In 2016, Brenner and trial attorney Douglas McCarron were recognized for the $1.7 million verdict obtained in Navas V Regal Entertainment Group. That case involved injuries suffered by a Monica Navas after moviegoers trampled her while trying to frantically escape a theater after a suspicious person started a fight days after the Aurora Colorado movie theater mass shooting.
Christopher Marlowe and trial attorney Pedro Echarte were the litigators of the #3 ranked inadequate security case on the 2017 list. The pair delivered a $1 million result in Gilbert v. Cryptical Development LLC.
Late Friday, a Ft. Myers jury awarded long haul trucker Steve Long $907, 211 for the injuries he sustained from a 2014 beating by several people in the parking lot of a Waffle House.
The Haggard Law Firm’s Todd Michaels co-counseled the negligent security case along with Dave Mishael of the Law Offices of David B. Mishael and Steven N. Kassner of Steven N. Kassner, PA.
The team of attorneys explained to the jury that for the 3 years before Long was attacked on April 19, 2014, , there were 24 significant crimes committed on the property. Those crimes included multiple fights (one involving nearly 100 people) and three incidents involving gun shots.
Haggard Law’s Todd Michaels explains “all of the crime and danger occurred in the 3rd shift, nonetheless, there was nothing done about it, IE: no security in the parking lot, no outside security cameras, poor lighting and no manned security.”
Michael Haggard says he wanted to become a trial lawyer thanks to the example set by his father Andy Haggard and what he watched his father do to help clients effected by tragedy.
Haggard has established himself as a powerful force in the South Florida Legal Community as the Managing Partner for The Haggard Law Firm. After spending time as a Public Defender and working with a small personal injury firm before joining The Haggard Law Firm, Haggard was named a partner in 2001, secure in the belief that every case holds equal importance and could mean the opportunity to award a family resolution to a devastating incident.
He soon captured national headlines as the only plaintiff’s personal injury attorney to secure three separate $100 million dollar verdicts on behalf of individual clients. Haggard secured two consecutive $100 million verdicts on behalf of children involved in pool accidents. Several years later, a third $100 million verdict was awarded by a jury in a negligent security case, deemed the largest of its kind for that genre of case law.
