Attorney attribution: Michael P. Minuti · McCann Dillon Jaffe & Lamb, LLC
Last updated: · Prepared for legal and editorial review; attorney approval has not been confirmed. Sourcing and corrections.
A property injury and a criminal act raise different questions
A wet-floor claim concerns a physical condition. Negligent security concerns alleged failures relating to harm caused by another person. The property relationship, control and circumstances matter. The law does not make every owner an insurer against crime, nor does the occurrence of an assault establish a duty to have guards everywhere.
The official Delaware Superior Court opinion in Frei v. Jask discusses commercial-premises duties and allegations of known violence, security staffing and foreseeable harm. It is useful for framing investigation questions, but its procedural setting must remain part of the explanation.
Delaware Superior Court — Frei v. Jask, Inc., September 19, 2023, pages 3–5
What the cited Delaware decision actually decided
In its September 19, 2023 opinion, the court accepted allegations as true for a motion to dismiss and allowed the pleaded premises-security claim to proceed. The allegations included knowledge or constructive knowledge of violence and criminal acts and failures involving security personnel. The court did not find that the defendant was negligent or that damages were proved.
For a new incident, investigate the kind, timing and location of earlier events; what complaints were made; who received them; and what precautions were in place. Foreseeability and notice are factual and legal questions. A report of unrelated crime somewhere nearby does not automatically establish responsibility for a particular injury.
Delaware Superior Court — Frei v. Jask, Inc., September 19, 2023, pages 3–5
Connect the alleged failure to this injury
Identify the operator, property manager, security contractor and alleged attacker without assuming each is liable. The relevant questions include who controlled access, what duties were undertaken, what staff knew and whether a supported failure contributed to the harm. A broken camera alone does not establish that a functioning camera would have prevented the assault.
Keep treatment records and describe the event and lasting effects accurately. A criminal prosecution, insurance claim and civil injury action have different purposes. Do not treat an arrest as proof of a property operator’s negligence or wait for the criminal matter to end before requesting deadline review.
Delaware Superior Court — Frei v. Jask, Inc., September 19, 2023, pages 3–5 · 10 Del. C. §§ 8119, 8132 — injury limitation and comparative negligence
Protect safety, privacy and original records
Seek immediate help for danger or injury. Preserve messages, incident numbers, witness contacts and photographs already taken safely. Do not contact an alleged attacker, return to an unsafe site or publish identifying details to investigate your claim. Ask Michael how to provide sensitive information after the first conversation.
Avoid signing a broad release or relying solely on a manager’s explanation. Record the exact property and time, why you were there and who employed the security staff if known. Missing video, prior complaints and staffing records can be subjects for appropriate preservation requests, not reasons for you to take restricted documents.
Delaware Superior Court — Frei v. Jask, Inc., September 19, 2023, pages 3–5 · 10 Del. C. §§ 8119, 8132 — injury limitation and comparative negligence
Evidence to preserve safely
This is a practical preparation checklist, not a statement that each item is required by law or available in every case. Michael can discuss preservation requests for records you do not possess.
- Exact place and time: Identify entrance, parking area or other location and your reason for being there.
- Reports and witnesses: Save police and property incident information and lawful contact details.
- Prior knowledge: Keep complaints or messages you already possess, with their dates.
- Security and medical records: Identify cameras, staff and treatment without collecting restricted records.
Potential parties and different claim paths
| Potential party | Question | Important qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Property operator | What duty and control existed for this visitor? | Ownership alone does not prove breach or foreseeability. |
| Security contractor | What services were undertaken and performed? | The agreement, conduct and causal connection matter. |
| Person who caused harm | Which civil and criminal paths apply? | A civil security claim is separate from prosecution. |
Primary sources
General-information disclaimer: Attorney advertising, not legal or medical advice. Current law, individual facts and applicable exceptions control. Reading this page or submitting a form does not create an attorney-client relationship. No result, payment amount or timetable is guaranteed.