$ 3,000,000 Settlement – Inadequate Security Case: ATM Shooting Resulting in Paraplegia

John Elliott Leighton litigated this inadequate security case on behalf of a 25-year-old man left paralyzed when he was shot at an ATM. Through litigation, Leighton demonstrated that the financial institution ignored hazards to its customers and had considered but rejected suggestions to install a drive-thru ATM for use at night. In the discovery and depositions of the bank executives, Leighton got admissions that they had actual plans for a drive-through ATM but because of cost had never executed the plans.  He also proved that the area was a high crime area in spite of a large amount of reported crime on the premises.  Leighton obtained a $3,000,000 settlement prior to trial, affording our client financial security for the rest of his life.

Evidence derived by Mr. Leighton through investigation and litigation showed that the ATM had a history of criminal activity taking place in the area, including drug and alcohol use. Since it was a walk-up only ATM, users were forced to put their backs to potential robbers and did not have the option of using a drive through for their transactions.  (J.G. v. Financial Institution)

ATMs are known crime magnets, and experts in bank and premises security recognize the need to take security measures to protect users.  This is particularly important in light of the substantial reduction in bank staff, forcing customers to rely on ATMs for their banking needs.  ATMs are much cheaper for banks, which place customers in a more dangerous position.  Because the financial institutions and banks can cut personnel costs by relying on ATMs, and they are available 24 hours a day, they have a financial incentive to use them.  It is through negligent security cases like these that businesses create a safer atmosphere for customers and the public. Leighton Panoff Law is committed to making banks safer places for customers to prevent just these types of criminal attacks and robberies.

Disclaimer: The information about past verdicts and settlements of the firm’s cases are based on the unique facts of each case. These amounts reflect the gross recovery in each case (before attorneys fees, expenses and medical costs are deducted). Although these results were obtained by our firm, they may not indicate the success or value of any other case. By clicking on Verdicts and Settlements you are acknowledging that each case is unique and must be evaluated on its own merits. The information contained here has not been reviewed or approved by The Florida Bar.