Ep. 23: The Second You Know" · Foreseeability and the Birth of Legal Duty

A store's parking lot gets hit once. Then again. Then a third time. When the fourth victim's attorney shows up, he doesn't ask "did you cause this?" — he asks "did you know?" In the Season 3 premiere, Don Carr and Jim Cords break down foreseeability: not a gut feeling, but a legal doctrine built from pattern and notice that turns what you know into what you legally owe. Why the law puts the duty on the party with the capability to act, why your own incident reports can become the case against you, and the uncomfortable question that sets up the rest of the season — what happens when we build technology designed to make us know everything? Loss. Liability. Law.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

0:02

This is the City Safe Podcast, a conversation at the intersection of community safety, technology, and leadership, co-hosted by Don Carr and Jim Kortz. Together, we examine the critical issues facing cities today and the smarter tools that can help reduce crime and protect our communities. From instant communication systems to emerging technology, we break down what works, what doesn't, and what's next for urban safety. Because in today's world, keeping people safe requires more than good intentions. It requires innovation, data, and decisive action. Listen to the City Safe Podcast, available now on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube Music. Subscribe today and join the mission to make cities safer for everyone. Thanks for joining us on another episode of the City Safe Podcast. This is episode 23. The second you know. And I'm your co-host, Jim Kords. A store gets hits in its parking lot. An assault. Bad night, but it happens. And then it happens again four months later. Then a third time. Different victims, same parking lot, same dark corner by the car return, but then there's a fourth. When the fourth victim's attorney walks into that case, here's what surprises people. He doesn't lead with, did the store cause this? He can't. The store didn't swing in anyone. But he leads with a different question, a quieter one. He asks, Did you know? And that's the whole episode right there, Jim. Because the second the answer to did you know is yes, the legal ground shifts under that business. They stop being a bystander to a crime and they become a party to a lawsuit. That's correct. It's the exact moment when knowing becomes owning. So, Jim, the word the whole episode arc turns on is foreseeability. And most people in this industry use it like it means something we kind of saw coming, a gut feeling. Well, it's not. In law, it's a doctrine with structure. So let's define it properly. Right. Foreseeability is the legal test for whether a reasonable operator, knowing what you knew, should have anticipated that harm could occur. So note what that does not say. It doesn't say you predicted the exact crime. It doesn't say you knew the victim's name. It asks whether the risk was knowable to a reasonable business in your position. Right, Jim. So it's not about prophecy, it's really about pattern. Yeah, it's entirely about pattern. And courts build that pattern out of evidence the business itself usually created. Prior incident reports, police call logs to that address, maintenance records, complaints from employees. The business is often holding the very file that establishes that it should have known. And that's the part a lot of operators miss. They think the record protects them. Well, sometimes the records are the case against them. Yeah, so courts often look at what they call the totality of the circumstances. So that means not just one event in isolation, but the whole picture. So three prior results in the same parking lot isn't necessarily three separate bad nights, because to a court, it's a pattern that put the operator on notice. And notice is the trigger word. Notice is that moment. Indeed, Jim. Um, but if you will, define notice because there are two kinds, and that difference matters. Okay. First, there's actual notice. So you were directly told, you saw it, it's in your own report. And then there's constructive notice. That means you should have known because a reasonable operator paying reasonable attention would have. So that second one is where businesses get caught. They'll say, Nobody told me. And the court says, Well, it was in your incident log, it was in the police reports for your address. You don't have to be told. You were positioned to know. Positioned to know. Hold on to that phrase. It comes back all season. So the line between bystander and party. Here's the conceptual move I want to make clear, Jim, because it's really counterintuitive. In general, the law does not make you responsible for a crime some third party committed. A stranger assaults someone in your lot. You didn't do that. Correct. The baseline rule is no duty to protect against the criminal acts of third parties. So what changes that? What turns not my fault into my liability, Jim? Well, foreseeability creates a duty where one didn't exist before. Once that harm becomes foreseeable to you, that is, once the pattern is established and you're on notice, then the law says you now have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect the people you've invited onto your property. So the knowledge is what creates that obligation. No knowledge, often no duty. But when there's knowledge, you might have some duty. So that's the title of the episode. The second you know, you owe. And I want to sit on why that's actually fair. Because at first it sounds like a punishment for paying attention. Yeah, it does sound that way. But think about it structurally. The business is the only party in a position to fix the lot. The customer can't install lighting, the customer can't hire a guard or trim the hedge by the cart return or reroute the cameras. Only the operator can. So the law puts the duty where the capability sits. You can act. Therefore, once you know, you must. And that's the principle that runs underneath premises, liability, negligent security, all of it. The duty attaches to the party with the capability and the knowledge. And that's not random. That's the law being logical about who could actually have prevented the harm. And we've both seen how this plays out. You've got the operator who had the prior reports sitting in a drawer, took no steps, and then the foreseeable thing happens. Versus the operator who saw the same pattern and acted, lit the lot, posted security, documented the response. Same risk, but completely different legal exposure. Not because of what happened to them, because of what they did with what they knew. So what does this mean Monday morning? Let's make this operational because this show of the City Safe podcasts isn't run on theory. If you run a store, run security, or sit over a region, what does the second you know you owe actually demand of you? Well, first, your incident data isn't just paperwork, it's a legal record of what you knew and when you knew it. So treat it that way. The pattern is being built in those reports, whether you read them or not. Well said, Jim. Second, and this is the architect's point. Knowing without a response is the worst position to be in. Worse, arguably, than not knowing. Because now the record shows awareness and shows an action. We're going to spend the next two episodes entirely on that paradox. But plant the flag now. Awareness without a defined response is exposure. And third, practically, when a pattern shows up, like repeat incidents, a location, a time of day, that's your notice. And the reasonable next step isn't to solve crime in America, it's to take reasonable steps. So document the risk, document what you did about it. The law asks for reasonableness, not perfection. And reasonableness is a moving target that rises with what you know. The more you know, the more reasonable ask of you. That's the escalation underneath the entire seasonal arc. Yeah, the operator who survives this isn't the one who got lucky. It's the one who, when the attorney asks, Did you know? can answer yes. And here is exactly what we did about it. So, in closing, here's where we leave it. Foreseeability isn't a feeling, it's a doctrine built out of pattern and notice. And it does one specific thing, it turns knowledge into duty. The second the harm was knowable to you, you owe a reasonable response to the people you invited in. And almost nobody decides to take on that duty on purpose, right? You back into it one incident report at a time, and and then you find out you cross that line only when the lawsuit names you. Indeed, Jim, which sets up exactly where we're going next. Because here's the uncomfortable question for the whole industry. If knowing creates the duty, what happens when we deploy technology specifically designed to make us know everything? Cameras that flag, AI that detects, systems that never blink. Does better detection make us safer? Or does it just raise the bar for what we should have done about what we saw? That's Detection's Dilemma. Two parts starting next episode. Thanks for joining us. I'm Don Carr. And I'm Jim Kords. Stay well, stay aware. And stay city safe. That wraps up this episode of the City Safe Podcast. Thanks for joining us in the conversation about smarter strategies for safer cities. If you found today's discussion valuable, share it with your network and help us spread awareness about the tools and technology making a real impact. Be sure to subscribe on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube Music so you never miss an episode. Until next time, stay informed, stay connected, and stay city safe.