Security driven lawsuits continue to pose financial threats to a wide range of public and private enterprise. Security lawsuits generally fall into two broad categories. The first, and most frequent lawsuit, falls under the category of premises liability lawsuits. The second group is classified as intentional tort lawsuits.

Intentional tort lawsuits within the security genre are stemmed from the overt actions of an employee or representative of the enterprise against the plaintiff. An example of this category of lawsuit could be a sexual assault committed against a patient in a hospital by an employee, such as a male nurse. Another example might be an assault by a nightclub bouncer against a patron, resulting in injury. Private security officers, and their employers, may be sued for claims of false arrest, use of excessive force and false imprisonment.

Security lawsuits arising under the aegis of premises liability claims are brought by plaintiff’s who were victimized by criminals while on the defendant’s property and/or while the defendants place of business. Examples of this type of case might include a patron who was assaulted and robbed in the parking structure of a shopping mall. Another example might be a hotel guest who is assaulted by unknown third parties whiles the guest of a hotel. The question to be decided in this kind of case is the adequacy of security necessary to prevent and deter criminal activity.

The issues at stake in many intentional tort cases such as use of excessive force are often the adequacy of training, the efficacy of the hiring process and the sufficiency of supervision. For example if a security officer is hired without an adequate background screening, and through the discovery process it is found the officer has a criminal past, the employer may my found culpable of negligent hiring.

Clearly premises liability cases tend to dominate the media. Innocent bystanders who are assaulted by criminals in nightclubs, apartment complexes and parking lots may all file lawsuits asserting inadequate security. The question then becomes, “How much security is enough?” The answer to that question is not as easy as one may think.

Security is a situational discipline. One size does not fit all. Security solutions follow a Hierarchy. The SSO Security Solution Hierarchy will be discussed in a separate article. The only way to understand which security solutions are needed to reduce risk of crime is to complete a security assessment (security audit, security survey). It makes absolutely no sense to spend money for security guards, alarms and CCTV until the scope of the problem is evaluated.

Many of us who have been security professionals for many years know the driving force behind most security programs is a major incident. All too often, until something really bad happens, the tendency is to put security on the back burner. Often a major security incident is the trigger for a security lawsuit. At that point consideration of remedies is a day late and a dollar short.

One of the best ways to avert security litigation is to practice sound security and loss prevention planning. Security should be proactive, anticipatory and preventative. Sound security programs are intended to deter criminal activity. Let’s look at a few of the rudiments of a sound security review.

First, consideration must be given to the crime environment. There are various vendors that can provide statistical information regarding criminality for a given area. Police departments can also provide raw data regards the level and kind of crime for a given neighborhood. If the security assessment is being applied to a business enterprise or a healthcare facility, there must also be an evaluation of the internal threat as well as the external threat.

Second, there must be some consideration given to what is the intended purpose of the security solutions under consideration. Security programs, to varying degrees are dedicated to protection persons and to protection property. These considerations apply to protecting a high-rise office building or a private home.

Third, when protecting any facility that caters to the public the security program must meet a Reasonable Standard of Care. To put it simplistically, the security program must address the reasonably anticipated threats of the enterprise. Clearly the security needs of a nightclub in New York City differ from the security needs of a retirement community in Butte, Montana.

We believe at SSO that security assessments should be conducted by an objective qualified professional. The reason for the term “objective” is that it is not recommended the security surveys be conducted by security vendors who have a vested interest in selling you something.

If you have questions about security litigation or the security assessment process, please contact SSO and we will find some answers. If you wish to make comments or suggest solutions, your input is welcome.