Missouri Laws 537.787 – Criminal or harmful acts, no duty of business to guard against, when — ..
1. There is no duty upon a business to guard against criminal acts or harmful acts on the premises unless the business knows or has reason to know that such acts are being committed or are reasonably likely to be committed in a particular area of the premises and sufficient time exists to prevent such crime or injury. In the absence of such a duty, no civil action for damages shall lie against a business for injuries sustained by a person in connection with criminal acts or harmful acts committed by another person on the premises.
2. If a duty is found to exist under subsection 1 of this section, the following affirmative defenses shall apply in any civil action for damages against a business for injuries sustained by a person in connection with criminal acts or harmful acts committed by another person on the premises:
Terms Used In Missouri Laws 537.787
- Common law: The legal system that originated in England and is now in use in the United States. It is based on judicial decisions rather than legislative action.
- Damages: Money paid by defendants to successful plaintiffs in civil cases to compensate the plaintiffs for their injuries.
- Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
- following: when used by way of reference to any section of the statutes, mean the section next preceding or next following that in which the reference is made, unless some other section is expressly designated in the reference. See Missouri Laws 1.020
- person: may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate, and to partnerships and other unincorporated associations. See Missouri Laws 1.020
- State: when applied to any of the United States, includes the District of Columbia and the territories, and the words "United States" includes such district and territories. See Missouri Laws 1.020
(1) The business has implemented reasonable security measures;
(2) The claimant was on the premises and was:
(a) A trespasser;
(b) Attempting to commit a felony; or
(c) Engaged in the commission of a felony;
(3) The criminal acts or harmful acts occurred while the business was closed to the public.
3. Evidence of subsequent action taken by the business to provide protection to persons on the premises shall not be admissible in evidence to show negligence or to establish the feasibility of any security measures.
4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to create or increase the liability of a business and does not affect any immunities from or defenses to liability established under state law or available under common law to which a business may be entitled.