Jake’s 58 Casino Shooting: Holding Negligent Security Accountable

In May 2024, a shooting outside Jake’s 58 Casino Hotel in Islandia, New York, left one man seriously injured and sparked a legal battle that highlights the critical importance of adequate security measures at commercial establishments. The victim, Steffan Bumpers, is now suing Suffolk OTB, which owns Jake’s 58, and Suffolk County, alleging that their negligence in providing sufficient security contributed to the violent attack. This case brings to the forefront the concept of negligent security and how businesses can be held accountable for failing to protect their patrons from foreseeable harm.

Understanding Negligent Security

Negligent security falls under premises liability law, which states that property owners have a duty to maintain a safe environment for their guests, visitors, and patrons. This duty extends to taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable criminal acts. When a property owner fails to provide adequate security measures and a crime occurs, resulting in injuries, they may be held liable for negligent security.

In New York, landlords and property owners have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants and visitors from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person. This means that if a property owner knows or should have known about potential risks and does nothing to prevent them, they can be held responsible if someone is injured due to a break-in or violent crime.

The Jake’s 58 Casino Shooting: A Case of Negligent Security?

Steffan Bumpers’ lawsuit against Jake’s 58 Casino and Suffolk County claims that the casino lacked sufficient security staffing, training, and hiring practices. The lawsuit alleges that this negligence directly led to the shooting and the “permanent” physical and emotional damage suffered by Bumpers.

According to reports, Bumpers was shot multiple times in the chest and abdomen by Nashawn Legros in the casino parking lot. While Legros has been charged with attempted murder and other crimes, Bumpers’ lawsuit argues that the casino and county could have prevented the attack by implementing better security measures.

What Constitutes Adequate Security?

Determining what constitutes adequate security depends on various factors, including the type of property, its location, and any history of criminal activity in the area. Some common security measures that businesses may be required to implement include:

Security Guards: Hiring trained security personnel to patrol the premises, monitor activity, and respond to incidents.
Surveillance Systems: Installing and maintaining CCTV systems to monitor the property, deter crime, and provide evidence in case of an incident.
Lighting: Ensuring adequate lighting in parking lots, walkways, and other areas to deter criminal activity and improve visibility.
Access Control: Implementing measures to control access to the property, such as locked doors, security checkpoints, and ID verification.
Employee Training: Providing employees with training on how to recognize and respond to security threats, handle emergencies, and assist patrons.
Background Checks: Conducting background checks on prospective employees, especially those in security-sensitive positions.

In the context of a casino, security is primarily concerned with safeguarding valuables, deterring violent crime on the property, and clamping down on improper or illegal conduct. Casino security teams are responsible for preserving a secure atmosphere, protecting casino assets, and controlling who may enter the property. Surveillance operators monitor live feeds from hundreds of cameras, while security guards patrol the casino floor to maintain order and prevent theft.

Proving Negligence in a Security Claim

To win a negligent security case in New York, the plaintiff must prove the following three elements:

Duty of Care: The property owner owed a legal duty to provide security on the premises.
Breach of Duty: The property owner failed to implement the necessary security measures.
Causation: The plaintiff’s injuries were directly caused by the property owner’s failure to provide adequate security.

In the Jake’s 58 Casino shooting case, Bumpers must demonstrate that the casino and county had a duty to provide adequate security, that they breached that duty by failing to implement reasonable security measures, and that this failure directly led to his injuries. He will need to provide evidence that the shooting was foreseeable and that the casino’s lack of security measures contributed to the incident.

Foreseeability: A Key Factor

A crucial aspect of negligent security cases is foreseeability. A property owner is generally only liable for criminal acts that were reasonably foreseeable. This means that there must have been a reasonable expectation that a crime could occur on the property.

To establish foreseeability, plaintiffs may present evidence of prior criminal activity on or near the property, security reports, and expert testimony. The more foreseeable the risk of crime, the greater the property owner’s duty to provide adequate security.

Casino’s Duty of Care to Patrons

Casinos, like other businesses that invite the public onto their premises, have a duty of care to protect their patrons from foreseeable harm. This duty extends to providing adequate security measures to prevent criminal activity and ensure the safety of guests.

Casinos are attractive targets for various types of crimes, including theft, fraud, cheating, and even internal misconduct. The nature of the gaming industry, dealing with high volumes of cash transactions, alcohol service, and large crowds, makes it imperative for casinos to invest in top-tier security strategies.

In addition to physical security measures, casinos also have a responsibility to address problem gambling and prevent patrons from suffering financial harm. Jake’s 58 Casino Hotel states that they endeavor to ensure that all patrons are provided a safe and secure gaming and entertainment experience and that they have a moral, social, and business responsibility to promote responsible gaming and to strictly enforce minimum legal wagering ages. They make efforts to encourage responsible gaming through signage, employee communications, and a self-exclusion program.

Legal and Financial Ramifications

If a property owner is found liable for negligent security, they may be required to pay damages to the victim, including compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and future costs associated with their injuries. In some cases, punitive damages may also be awarded to punish the property owner for their negligence and deter similar conduct in the future.

The financial consequences of a negligent security lawsuit can be significant, especially for businesses that fail to prioritize security and take reasonable steps to protect their patrons.

Conclusion

The Jake’s 58 Casino shooting case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adequate security measures at commercial establishments. Property owners have a legal and ethical duty to protect their patrons from foreseeable harm, and they can be held accountable when they fail to meet this responsibility.

If you have been injured as a result of inadequate security on someone else’s property, it is essential to seek legal advice from an experienced personal injury attorney. An attorney can help you understand your rights, investigate the circumstances of your injury, and pursue a claim for compensation against the responsible parties.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have been injured due to negligent security, you should consult with a qualified attorney to discuss your specific situation.