Premises security criminologist

Expert class library · Personal injury · Plaintiff side

A security consultant or criminologist who says whether a crime on a property was foreseeable from prior incidents and area crime, whether the owner's security met industry practice, and whether better security would have prevented the attack. Courts readily accept testimony on foreseeability and security practice, but the causation opinion is where these experts fail: an assertion that more guards, cameras or policies would have stopped a sudden attack is often rejected as speculation, which ends the case on summary judgment.

Ask this expertPreview

A preview of this class of expert, built from the public rulings on this page. Ask how the testimony is built, attacked or defended. 20 questions free with a firm email.

Takes a minute; we email you a code.

What this expert is retained to answer

Which prior incidents does the expert rely on, and how similar are they in type, location and time to the crime at issue?
Does the causation opinion explain how a specific measure would have prevented this attack, given how quickly it unfolded?
Is the claimed standard drawn from published guidance or the owner's own policies, or from the expert's personal view?
For negligent hiring or retention, what did a reasonable background check show, and is the expert qualified on hiring practice?
Does the opinion address the assailant's conduct, or treat any crime as preventable?

Methods

Prior incident and calls-for-service analysis
Area crime data review
Security program review against industry practice and the owner's own policies
Site inspection (lighting, access control, cameras, staffing)
Employee hiring and background check review

How the testimony is attacked

Speculative causation. Saying more security would have prevented a crime is not enough without facts showing how. In Wright v. R.M. Smith Investments the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed striking a security expert's causation opinions as speculative and unreliable, and summary judgment followed.
A sudden attack no measure would stop. Where an assault unfolds in seconds, courts reject opinions that guards or ejection policies would have changed the outcome. In Stokes v. Forty Niners Stadium Management the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment after the trial court found the security expert's causation opinions rested on speculation.
Reliance on arrest and investigation history. Experts who rely on an assailant's arrests or investigations, not convictions, face hearsay and relevance objections. In Dugan v. Hyatt the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a criminologist's foreseeability opinion based on the assailant's own admitted history.
Dissimilar prior crimes. Prior incidents of a different kind, or far from the attack site, may not make the crime foreseeable, and courts scrutinize the expert's use of area crime statistics.
Standards without a source. Opinions that security fell below an industry standard are attacked when the expert cannot identify the standard or shows it is only personal preference.

What the public record shows

Courts have filed at least 9 opinions since 2015 that address this class of testimony under Daubert or Rule 702, as of October 4, 2026. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:

Outcome	Case	Court	Year	Why
Excluded	Stokes v. Forty Niners Stadium Management Co., LLCNo. H050639	Cal. Ct. App.	2025	Affirming summary judgment for a stadium operator and its security contractor after a fan was assaulted in a parking lot, the court agreed that the plaintiffs' security expert's opinions that following security policies would more likely than not have prevented the assault rested on speculation and could not create a triable issue of causation.
Admitted	Dugan v. Hyatt Corp.No. ED111485	Mo. Ct. App.	2024	Affirming a verdict for a hotel guest sexually assaulted by a security guard, the court upheld a criminologist's opinion that the assault was foreseeable from the guard's arrest and investigation history, holding the expert could rely on his deposition admissions and the hotel had not preserved hearsay or relevance objections.
Excluded	Wright v. R.M. Smith Investments, L.P.210 So. 3d 555	Miss. Ct. App.	2016	The court affirmed striking a security expert's opinions that inadequate security caused a shopper's injuries in a parking lot purse theft, because they were speculative and did not meet Daubert and Rule 702, and affirmed summary judgment where only one violent incident had occurred on the property in five years.

Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.

Under amended Rule 702

Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.

Guides

Amended Rule 702 After Nearly Three Years: What Courts Exclude

Simulating this class on a matter

Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.

Put your questions to this expert.Ask this expert Simulate it on your matter →

Last reviewed October 4, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.