Negligent Security

We have significant experience with the guard industry as both an expert witness and as an end user.  We have also managed and training security officers in both the private sector and proprietary settings.

Negligent Security generally is assigning/alleging fault to a security provider such as a proprietary guard or contract guard service or armored car service.  In general terms law suits are brought when there is personal injury or loss of assets and  it is alleged that the security provider failed to perform their duties because of negligence.  The negligence factors will generally follow a path of negligent hiring, negligent training and negligent supervision.

We have been involved in numerous cases of negligent security and, as happens with any failure, there is not just one single issue that initiated the civil action but rather the totality of the events leading up to the event made basis for the cause of action.

Negligent Hiring:

Background checks can be as simple as calling references or as complex as finding old elementary school teachers for comment.  The application process should always include a requirement of listing employment for the past 7 years and a disclosure of any criminal conviction.  Many companies request disclosure of felony convictions but there are still serious misdemeanor offenses that may cause a company problems if not revealed.  Most states require security personnel to be fingerprinted and checked by the FBI.  However, in house security is rarely regulated by State regulatory agencies but that does not preclude them from conducting a thorough vetting.

Negligent Training and Negligent Supervision

These two generally go hand in hand in allegations in these torts.  What may surprise customers of contract security companies is that, depending on the state, the mandated minimum of hours of training may be as low as 0.  States usually require the teaching of  standardized training material, a final test and handgun qualification if necessary.  Regardless of the amount, method or manner of training, it should be well documented.  Without the acknowledgement of training AND documentation of an adequate level of understanding (usually by a test) it would be difficult to convince the court that proper training had taken place.

Since not all needed knowledge comes from a formal classroom setting, the use of on-the-job (OJT) training will always be a part of the overall training.  Generally, the direct supervisor is responsible for this type of training but, nonetheless, documentation of this training needs to be made as it happens.  Checklists are helpful to ensure everyone receives specific information after formal training has ended.  However, at a minimum, training topics that are covered should be well documented on any daily reporting for either the supervisor or the post for the guard.