Verdict - Summer 2017 - 19
O
n a warm summer eve-
Therefore, if a property owner hires a secu-
damages are asserted. To account for this
ning in June 2014, a
rity company to patrol or monitor the prop-
possibility, it is often good practice to name
security officer shot and
erty, it has a personal and nondelegable
the individual guard as a defendant. Not only
killed an unarmed man
duty to choose a responsible security guard
does this account for the possibility of losing
for refusing to leave a
company. 2 Not only does this mean that the
on vicarious liability, but the individual guard's
hotel in Decatur. At an
property owner can be liable for guard neg-
defense counsel often will help prove course
apartment complex in Austell several years
ligence, but it may be held responsible inten-
and scope.
prior, another guard with a history of "erratic
tional torts, too. 3
If the employer is not vicariously liable
and threatening behavior" slayed a tenant
In fact, the Georgia Supreme Court
for the guard's torts, it can be held directly
during a confrontation. On yet another occa-
Peachtree-Cain v. McBee held that it
liable on negligent hiring, retention, training,
sion, a hotel guest was shot in the face during
"agree[d] with the imposition of liability upon
and supervision claims. In fact, the Georgia
a robbery. The hotel claimed it had uniformed
property owners for the intentional torts
Court of Appeals held that security compa-
security, only the scheduled guard never
committed by the personnel of an indepen-
nies must exercise "a greater amount of care
showed up for his shift.
dent security agency, where the security
to meet the degree or standard of care" when
Security guards serve an important role in
agency was hired by the property owners
selecting their employees, given that they
deterring and preventing crime. As the above
to protect their premises."4 If the tortious
protect people and property.7 At a minimum,
incidents illustrate, however, poor manage-
security officer is an off-duty law enforce-
Georgia regulations require security compa-
ment, negligence, or worse sometimes make
ment officer, however, the property owner
nies to check a candidate's criminal history, 8
security guards more of a danger than deter-
is not liable for torts committed pursuant to
and industry sources recommend verifying
rent. At best, negligent security guards pro-
the officer's police duties. 5
at least seven years of prior employment. 9
Guards must also have at least 24 hours of
vide a false sense of security. And given that
nearly 29,000 people are employed as secu-
B. The Security Guard Company
classroom instruction, plus another 15 hours
rity guards in Georgia alone, practitioners of
Many or perhaps most security guards are
to carry a firearm.10
premises liability are likely to encounter cases
direct employees of private security compa-
involving security guards.
nies. Although each case is fact-specific,
II. WHAT INFORMATION AND
Whether you are litigating use-of-force,
intentional tort or negligent security cases
DOCUMENTS TO SEEK IN DISCOVERY
false imprisonment, or negligent security
involving guards often warrant adding these
Certain documents and information are ubiq-
cases involving security guards, common
companies as defendants. In negligent secu-
uitous across the security industry and should
issues are likely to arise. This article provides
rity cases, premises owners often blame
be requested in most cases involving guards
tips on addressing some of the more com-
security contractors and guard companies for
regardless of whether you are litigating a
mon issues that arise in litigation involving
security flaws or gaps, and the guard company
use-of-force or negligent security case. In
security guards.
can be present for apportionment purposes or
such cases, requests for production often
to refute claims that they were tasked with
seek the following documents:
I. CHOOSING THE RIGHT PARTIES
certain duties (assuming there is a duty of
* The guard services contract. Most prem-
One of the earliest and most important tasks
care; see supra).
ises owners and security companies will
when litigating cases involving security
In intentional tort cases, security companies
have a services contract. Not only does
guards is choosing the right defendants.
can be held vicariously liable for a guard's
this help define the guard's responsibili-
Security guard negligence and intentional
excessive force and wrongful detention. Given
ties, but it is essential for establishing a
torts are often imputable on the employer and
the nature of their profession, heavy-handed
third-party beneficiary claim against the
property owner, and the facts often warrant
security guards who harm or wrongfully detain
adding these entities as defendants.
others frequently do so in the course and scope
* Both general and specific post orders.
guard company.
of employment, even if they violate company
Broadly speaking, security guard compa-
A. The property owner
policies and procedures. 6 When the plaintiff
nies draft general post orders to provide
Premises owners in Georgia have a duty
names a guard company in an intentional tort
universal rules and guidelines applicable
to exercise ordinary care in keeping the
case, you can expect the defendant to deny
to all sites. Specific post orders are site
premises and approaches safe for invitees.
course and scope, particularly when punitive
centric and reflect the premises owner's
1
Summer 2017 19
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Verdict - Summer 2017
President’s Message
Don’t Stop Fighting: Overcoming Obstacles Leads to Record Verdict in Camden County
Amazing Things Happen When Women Get Involved!
AAJ Addresses Top Concerns with Congress
Pro Bono Representation: A Bond Forged between a Naval Officer and Trial Lawyer
3 Tips for Defeating Daubert Motions
Common Issues to Stay on Guard in Cases Involving Tortious Security Officers
The Confusing Question of Causation in Criminal Attack Premises Liability Cases
Technology: Notetaking for the Digital Lawyer
New Lawyers’ Corner: 6 Questions for Verdict
Pope Langdale: Community Investments for a Cause
Case Updates: Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959
Workers’ Comp: Standard of Review — “Any Evidence” Rule
Thank You, Civil Justice PAC Contributors!
GTLA Champion Members
Welcome New GTLA Members!
Index to Advertisers/Advertiser.com
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Intro
Verdict - Summer 2017 - cover1
Verdict - Summer 2017 - cover2
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 3
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 4
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 5
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 6
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 7
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 8
Verdict - Summer 2017 - President’s Message
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Don’t Stop Fighting: Overcoming Obstacles Leads to Record Verdict in Camden County
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 11
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Amazing Things Happen When Women Get Involved!
Verdict - Summer 2017 - AAJ Addresses Top Concerns with Congress
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Pro Bono Representation: A Bond Forged between a Naval Officer and Trial Lawyer
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 15
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 3 Tips for Defeating Daubert Motions
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 17
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Common Issues to Stay on Guard in Cases Involving Tortious Security Officers
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 19
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 20
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 21
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 22
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 23
Verdict - Summer 2017 - The Confusing Question of Causation in Criminal Attack Premises Liability Cases
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 25
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 26
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 27
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Technology: Notetaking for the Digital Lawyer
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 29
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 30
Verdict - Summer 2017 - New Lawyers’ Corner: 6 Questions for Verdict
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 32
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 33
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Pope Langdale: Community Investments for a Cause
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 35
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Case Updates: Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 37
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Workers’ Comp: Standard of Review — “Any Evidence” Rule
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 39
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Thank You, Civil Justice PAC Contributors!
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Welcome New GTLA Members!
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Index to Advertisers/Advertiser.com
Verdict - Summer 2017 - cover3
Verdict - Summer 2017 - cover4
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0318
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0218
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0118
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0417
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0317
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0217
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0117
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0416
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0316
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0216
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0116
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0415
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0315
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0215
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0115
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0113
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0412
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0312
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0212
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0112
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0411
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0311
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0211
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0111
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0410
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com