Connecticut Personal Injury Jury Charges: Duty to Protect from Wrongful Conduct of Third Persons

Posted by Richard P. Hastings | Dec 08, 2011 | 0 Comments

Jury charges are instructions that the trial court judge will give to the jurors after the closing statements have been made by the attorneys but before they begin deliberations. There charges are the law in the State of Connecticut as it relates to certain decisions, which the jury will be called upon to make. One decision that the jury will have to make involves the duty to protect individuals from the wrongful conduct of others and an appropriate jury charge might be:

Duty to Protect from Wrongful Conduct of Third Persons.  The plaintiff claims that the defendant was negligent in failing to provide adequate security to prevent a third person from committing crimes on the premises that were likely to cause harm to persons such as the plaintiff. You have already been instructed on the duties owed to an invitee by one who controls the premises.  In this case, if you find that the plaintiff was an invitee and if you find that the defendant was in control of the premises, the defendant owed a duty to take reasonable steps to safeguard the plaintiff on the premises from the criminal acts of third persons provided the plaintiff also proves 1) that the defendant had notice of the risk and 2) that the defendant's conduct placed the plaintiff within the scope of the risk.

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant actually knew about, or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about crimes or conduct of the same general nature as that befalling the plaintiff occurring on the premises or in its immediate vicinity.  If you find that the defendant a) knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of such crimes, and b) that such crimes or conduct were of the same general nature as that befalling the plaintiff and c) that such crimes had previously occurred on the premises or the immediate vicinity, then the plaintiff has proved notice to the defendant.  If you find that the plaintiff has failed to prove any one of these elements, you must find in favor of the defendant.  If the plaintiff has proved all of these, then the plaintiff has satisfied the requirement that such notice be proved.

The plaintiff must also prove that it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that the failure to take steps reasonably necessary to safeguard the plaintiff would subject the plaintiff to the type of harm of which the defendant had notice.  Even if the defendant had notice as I have defined it for you, the plaintiff must still prove that the defendant could reasonably foresee that failure to take action to warn or safeguard the plaintiff would subject the plaintiff to the same general type of harm - what the law calls placing the plaintiff "within the scope of the risk."

If you find that the defendant could not reasonably foresee that the failure to take reasonable steps to safeguard the plaintiff was likely to subject the plaintiff to the same general type of harm of which the defendant had notice, then the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant's conduct placed the plaintiff within the scope of the risk.  If you find that the defendant could reasonably foresee that the failure to take reasonable steps to safeguard the plaintiff would likely subject the plaintiff to the same general type of harm of which the defendant had notice, then the plaintiff has proved that the defendant's conduct placed the plaintiff within the scope of the risk and this element is satisfied.

If the plaintiff has proved the status of an invitee - that the defendant was in control of the premises, that the defendant had notice of the risk, and that the defendant's conduct placed the plaintiff within the scope of the risk - the plaintiff has proved the necessary elements of negligence and you must go on to consider proximate cause.

Do not retain an attorney, say anything to anyone from the insurance company or sign any type of documents until you download a copy of our FREE book "The Crash Course on Personal Injury Cases in Connecticut". Learn what you need to do and how an injury case is developed and put together. Learn how cases are evaluated and what insurance adjusters look for before making offers of money or the injured party. Call us at (888) 244-5480, visit us at www.hcwlaw.com and tell us about your case. We'll call you and answer your questions. Get the answers you need today!

About the Author

Richard P. Hastings

Attorney Hastings concentrates his practice on personal injury and litigation. Devoted to helping those who have suffered some type of wrong, Richard P. Hastings concentrates his law practice on personal injury law.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Sample

Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Donec sed odio dui. Maecenas sed diam eget risus varius blandit sit amet non magna. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas.

Let Us Fight for You

Local Presence. Statewide Coverage.

When you choose Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP you will receive the one-on-one attention and individualized support that you deserve. Our Connecticut personal injury attorneys will not treat you as just another case number nor will we hand your case off to a paralegal.

Unlike other law firms, we will personally handle each legal aspect of your case, walking with you every step of the way. We aim to provide the highest quality representation possible. We have extensive experience and training in a variety of aspects of personal injury law. We obtain the knowledge and skill-set necessary to maximize your compensation.

440 Main Street
Suite 2

Ridgefield, CT 06877
203-438-7450
Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri: 08:30am - 05:00pm

Menu