Wal-Mart Parking Lots: Duty to do more than Observe?

[N. A. Corbier]

SIW's Story on Lawsuit against Wal-Mart: http://www.securityinfowatch.com/onl...any/6669SIW379

As the news article relates, Wal-Mart is being sued for failing to maintain proper security on its premises.

Having worked for WM, I can relate that for stores that have a "Walmart Courtesy Guard," which is a uniformed associate who patrols the parking lot in a marked patrol vehicle with rotating yellow light (Which shall be kept on at all times), this associate is not the traditional sense of a "security officer," which is why the term "security" is completely missing from his job description.

His purpose is to drive around, help guests with putting in groceries, etc. He is strictly to make guests feel more comfortable (Notice I did not say safe) while in the parking lot.

Some Walmarts contract Securitas to provide an "observe and report" guard for this mission. Their mission has nothing to do with the in-store loss prevention associate, they are simply a visible symbol of comfort for the average walmart shopper in the parking lot.

Upon observing a "situation," the guard will report the situation over the radio to the Customer Service Manager on duty, who will then decide if the police are required. After the police are dispatched, the guard will return to patrol.

Not all Walmarts are slated for a "Courtesy Guard."

For those in retail or other security areas who provide strictly "observe and report" functions to management, this suit will help shape case law relating to duty to protect and "security guards who are not security guards." Such as the "Courtesy Officer," or the "Gate Attendant."

[Echos13]

SIW's Story on Lawsuit against Wal-Mart: http://www.securityinfowatch.com/onl...any/6669SIW379

As the news article relates, Wal-Mart is being sued for failing to maintain proper security on its premises.

Having worked for WM, I can relate that for stores that have a "Walmart Courtesy Guard," which is a uniformed associate who patrols the parking lot in a marked patrol vehicle with rotating yellow light (Which shall be kept on at all times), this associate is not the traditional sense of a "security officer," which is why the term "security" is completely missing from his job description.

His purpose is to drive around, help guests with putting in groceries, etc. He is strictly to make guests feel more comfortable (Notice I did not say safe) while in the parking lot.

Some Walmarts contract Securitas to provide an "observe and report" guard for this mission. Their mission has nothing to do with the in-store loss prevention associate, they are simply a visible symbol of comfort for the average walmart shopper in the parking lot.

Upon observing a "situation," the guard will report the situation over the radio to the Customer Service Manager on duty, who will then decide if the police are required. After the police are dispatched, the guard will return to patrol.

Not all Walmarts are slated for a "Courtesy Guard."

For those in retail or other security areas who provide strictly "observe and report" functions to management, this suit will help shape case law relating to duty to protect and "security guards who are not security guards." Such as the "Courtesy Officer," or the "Gate Attendant."

As you are no doubt aware they have them here in Florida. When they first started here they were in golf carts, then cheap little ecno-cars and they had security letterd on them. I am not quite sure when they changed here as well. Some ATM calls I get are to a few WM, including side calls when these techs have to make check in calls to most of the WM's in thier area. I watch these people as they go about thier "job". Indeed they are not associated with LP at all here. They help with battery jumps, loading and unloading (light) stuff for people. They are high profile Courtesy Guards as you stated. I even see some of them help with gathering carts and policing the area sometimes. Perhaps even to maintain that none LP or intervention issue they seem to hire long term retiries for these jobs. There is one gentleman at a super center I see a lot who is old enough to be my grandfather. A few I have seen can barely fit into the car (no offense to big+ people but it's a turthfull observation). Some of these people have good attitudes and are nice but I seriously doubt any of them could take action on anything let alone direct intervention. I think they should consider making this area more security minded. But where does courtesy end and security begin? I am a former Corporate Detective of the now gone Mass Brothers. So there is a seperation of LP and security as it is with most retail firms but not all. There are a few fabric stores that have armed uniform guards in them along with a few of these recycled goods stores. Of course where these stores are lets just say the "social order" changes at night. As for weather or not they are protecting the goods or the people is a good question. I was attending the Retail LP&S conventions each year and met a few Kmart people. Many gave me the impression they had little or no interest in pursuing security beyond protecting it's assets pretaining to merchandise and internal problems. MB had the same attitude, but in the malls there was the local contract security patrols and LEO's that came by often. The independant self standing stores had no security at all for people when they left the stores. I assume WM and other bigger names have the same ideals. But I think it should change. And that of course is another thing all together too.

[Mr. Security]

....

Some Walmarts contract Securitas to provide an "observe and report" guard for this mission. Their mission has nothing to do with the in-store loss prevention associate, they are simply a visible symbol of comfort for the average walmart shopper in the parking lot.

Granted, Securitas s/o's are mostly the "observe and report" type. However, their presence is of more benefit than just "comfort." It is a fact that the presence of a uniformed s/o can deter crime. Criminals know that they are more likely to be apprehended by LE if the s/o provides a license plate number as well as a vehicle and perp. description. This means that most criminals will pick an easier target since there is no shortage of places where security is completely absent.

Of course if a robber/rapist is determined to 'hit' a specific location regardless of risk, then the benefit is minimal. I believe that such a scenario is the exception rather than the rule at Wal-Mart parking lots.

[wisconsinite]

Well, my heart goes out to the Donovan Family, but this is another fine example of a frivilous lawsuit. A lawsuit crazy America. The lawsuit is stipulating that Wal-Mart "failed to adequately monitor and control its premises, to effectively protect its patrons, to warn patrons of the nature and extent of crimes committed on the premises, and to ensure that existing security procedures were followed."
How does Mr. Donovan know? Does he have a copy of Wal-Mart's handbook?
The average citizen knows, that there are places in society that crime WILL happen, that they may not be safe at ALL TIMES. It's inevitable. And criminals know, when there is no security, loss prevention personnel in the area...STRIKE! Unless you work at the White House, The Pentagon, or Fort Knox....NO place is impenetrable. Criminals will do what they want to do. Not even police can be everywhere. Why not just charge the local PD for failing to "preserve, protect & defend"? It's a tragic incident. But Wal-Mart should not be held accountable. The 2 escapees from a Kentucky jail should be held accountable for THEIR actions. And they were held accountable, receiving life sentences.

[Mr. Security]

....Unless you work at the White House, The Pentagon, or Fort Knox....NO place is impenetrable....

Even then, there is danger.

[Steve354]

Frist I would like to say that i fine this stroy every intresting and would love to get my hands on copy of the paper it was in.
Has me the last shopping centre I worked at the car park was out of my area because it was own by the gov not the centre. The only time i had anything to do with it was when a car was brouken into.

A Securtiy Officer,s job is to obsver montier and report. He or she Is the eyes and hears for the Police. To be a Security Officer here in Australia you frist must do a Certificate 2 in Security(Guarding) It coves the folllowing.

Maitain the security of premisesand property

Control access to and exit from premises

Maintain safty of premises and presonnel

Communicate in the workplace

Manage conflict

Maintain occupational health and safety

Mangae own performance

Operate basic security equipment

Apprehend offenders

Escort and carry valuables

Provide safety of presons

Control crowds

Maintain an effective relationship with clients and customers

Work as part of a team

Provide emergency frist aid

Interpert and comply with legal and procedural requirements

This cost up to $800.00 for 3 weeks. then you have to pay $136.00 for your licence and Police check every year Oh i should say that youb have to have police check before you can do the couse. So what this got to the with the post. Well has I said before a security officer,s job is to obvers and monter and report. So Why can,t these pepole have same training to cover what they do but still be under cover and there should be age limte to. I have sroken to a Manger og Walmart because I am moving to the U.S.A. but does not have security doing outside work. I am not says where that is.

[N. A. Corbier]

Well, my heart goes out to the Donovan Family, but this is another fine example of a frivilous lawsuit. A lawsuit crazy America. The lawsuit is stipulating that Wal-Mart "failed to adequately monitor and control its premises, to effectively protect its patrons, to warn patrons of the nature and extent of crimes committed on the premises, and to ensure that existing security procedures were followed."
How does Mr. Donovan know? Does he have a copy of Wal-Mart's handbook?
The average citizen knows, that there are places in society that crime WILL happen, that they may not be safe at ALL TIMES. It's inevitable. And criminals know, when there is no security, loss prevention personnel in the area...STRIKE! Unless you work at the White House, The Pentagon, or Fort Knox....NO place is impenetrable. Criminals will do what they want to do. Not even police can be everywhere. Why not just charge the local PD for failing to "preserve, protect & defend"? It's a tragic incident. But Wal-Mart should not be held accountable. The 2 escapees from a Kentucky jail should be held accountable for THEIR actions. And they were held accountable, receiving life sentences.

One thing to note. The Police were sued, many times, for failing to protect people or property. The courts have found that the government has no duty to protect the individual, only society as a whole. This is one of the reasons that private protection, where a contractual obligation to protect one entity has expanded so much.

[rentacop74]

observe and report or not to observe and report

to all who work in the security industry.

i have been working off and on in the past 9 years in the security field working for various companies small and large.from malls,apts,plants,cable stations,etc. and it seems to be all security work is not the same. like others have stated on this forum some officers only observe and report they dont go running after people yelling security officer stop, they dont tackle people and most of them dont even carry any sort of protection IE:handcuffs,asp batons,gloves,oc,flashlights etc. if they did they would probably loose there jobs depending on post orders and wants and needs of the client your working for.

I have seen big differences in training in different security companies some just give you the basic required law training and thats it, some dont give you much of that even ojt for a week then your on your own, and some go all the way to fort knox on training they train all officers in selfdefense, apprehension,pursuits,report writing,public relations,investigations,tactical handcuffing,asp/pr24 training,oc etc etc. and are more professional.

most security companies dont require a two year degree for being a security officer like Lawenforcement agencies do. So i believe giving officers good training is going to help the company in the long run. I have personally worked with officers that dont even know how to speak english let alone can read the reports or even know where to put what info where. I refuse to ever work with such idiots they have no reason to even work in the industry. makes the good guys look bad. (companies sometimes just fill a position quickly with who ever because they have to)

One thing i find very hard is that when you are hired in a new position and are relieving another officer at that post and that officer has worked that post for years and knows alot of people and so he doesnt ask everyone to see id when they pass the gate, then i start and dont know anyone so i stop everyone to see id and boy do people get pissed. you hear all sorts of stuff
well who are you? ive worked here 25years, well good for you. i still need to see your id that is why iam here. i dont know who you are so. they just dont seem to understand that. they get into such a routine then one person comes along and trys to do his job and man makes it very hard. Has anyone here experienced the same thing.?

Then you have these officers that dont really give ahoot and let everything go by them and then a new person starts and does his job per post orders and catches the most grief about it. well im here to do this job and im going to do it the way its suppose to be done. and if you have others here that arnt doing there jobs i would suggest to get rid of them or shape them up.
These companies hired these officers for a reason and spent hundreds of thousands a year to protect and serve there company interest. you just cant sit in your guard shack and wave at people you dont even know by.

I understand security doesnt get paid very well for what they expect sometimes. and most of the time there are no benefits to go along with it. so i guess i can undertand why companies hire just about anyone that applies.
i have been a supervisor myself in the past and hiring isnt easy work and trying to find good quality people isnt easy either. I try and verify there applications by calling people, doing background checks, interviewing them etc. I have found that some younger people seem to think its so cool to be security so they can run around like a robocop and play with there equipment i have personally seen this. you dont see cops walking the beat and swinging there gun with there fingers do ya?. not even professional let alone safe. There needs to more strict rules on equipment use,training,handling. (while on duty. Now if you use your cuffs at home on your other half well thats another story we wont cover . LOL LOL

I have also seen security officers give out there on and off hours and schedules to anyone that asks on there site. that is a no no that is a breach in security, we want people to know were around but not when were around. otherwise that defeats the whole purpose of security. when patroling i allways backtrack again make people think wow he is back already, these companies that have schedules setup to on the clock rounds every hour or so well thats not security, people are watching us more then you think and they will figure out when and where you are at all times. you want them to know your there but dont know where your going next. always switch off routes,backtrack appear to be everywhere all the time you will deter more crime and probably catch more criminals. thats my 2cents of thought i could write a book on all the things i have seen in my 8-9 years experience. but i dont think im going here with that yet. LOL

I'm just wondering how many people work for companies that regulate the observe and report only or observe/report/apprehend etc.

there are alot of laws out there that do let private citizens performing a security function do. But sometimes certain companies dont want the liability so they stay away from such things, IE:citizens arrests even if you did observe the crime happen.


Rentacop74
Certified Pr24/asp baton instructor
Tactical handcuffing,oc,selfdefense trained
Permit to carry,firearms certified.
First Responder Certified

[Mall Director]

Ahhhhh LIABILITY!!! Misperception!

Very good! In the last post, the phrase "liability" came up. THats a neat one to hit. As a general conception, Liability is a word most corporates, or companies use, in effect to disable their staff from operating safely and efficiently.

Coming to terms with current events, we are now "post 9/11". As I have even noticed the role of the Private Security sector has undergone major trend setting changes, and changes in policies. The role of the traditional "Security Guard" is outgoing, and the "Security Officer" is needed.

Guard: an individual stationed at one or selected locations to control access and record activity.
Officer: A fully functioning individual assigned multiple responsibilities and multi-tasked oriented.

Back to Liability. Observe and Report. That is a good system. Of course Observe and report should never be tossed asside and lost in our daily activites. But by just "Observing and Reporting", are we refraining from being confronted with Liability. As seen above, WM had this issue, as well as many other facilities. In most cases, Liability responsibility is held accountable to the "Observe and Report" system. The social perception of Security is yes, observe and report, but simply recording an incident and calling it into the local law enforcement agencies does not release us from Liability. As a matter of fact, even in some states, if an illegal activity is occuring, and no attempt to detour or stop such actions is taken, then the person just observing and reporting is still held accountable and Liable.

A grocery store security officer is recording a vehicle break-in. the vehicle was left idling in the parking lot while the mother runs in "real quick". The Security Officer observes this action, and records it. All the while the Security Officer also contacts local law enforcement. During this break in, the subject enters the vehicle, and is confronted by two small children. One child becomes combative. The subject turns around and begins to assault the child. The Security Officer remains observant of the actions and records the activity. The Subject over takes the child and begins to drive away. In the attempted drive away, the child is thrown from the vehicle, and sustains serious injury. Later that afternoon, local law enforcement find the vehicle abandon in an alley with the second child knocked unconscience.

Is the Security Officer protected from Liability? The Officer recorded all actions and reported them promptly.

As stated before, the nation has become a "lawsuit aggressive" mentality. The lawsuit takes effect, and the mother is awarded suit over the Security Agency for not taking appropriate actions to help prevent a situation from escilating.

If we as Public Safety Officers (Security) stand by and watch a fight between juveniles, and "observe and report", but take no action, we are liable. This is federal law. We, as the acting responsible adults, are held accountable for any minor child we come into contact with. We are held Liable.

So, in short, Observe and Report is excellent. But in order to avoid lawsuits and Liability, we can not stand idly by and just take no action. I am sure many of you may have encountered the phrase of "Security just stands around and watches" in some point of your careers. This is a dangerous perspective society can have on us, as Safety Officers, or Security Officers.

The day of when it was simple enough to hire a "warm body" to fill a uniform and punch a clock or turn a key has gone away. Seriousely, Can we look at what we are charged with in the way of responsibilities, and justify hiring any "clean record" individual that breathes? God no! This opens you up to Liability!

As Security you are a "Sole Proprieter": The acting represenative of a specific property, in lue of the property owner, and having been charged with the responsibily of the property and who enters it.

What does this mean? We are not law enforcement, nor am I stating we take actions like law enforcement, but we are responsible for what happens on our property. And avoiding taking action, with in reason, to prevent any or further negative action against us, our property, or others around is a Liability.

I am charged as a Director Of Security, to provide the best service possible with the best results to the Property, and my clients. By hiring a warm body, that can not function clearly, analyze incidents quickly with the best results, and operate "Proactively", I have failed in my position. I currently am supposed to have twice the staff I have at this moment. It takes me twice as long as our local police department to fill an open position. I have to maintain the trimmest of selection, in order to find the best person to operate within my department. I have to look for a person who is of sound mind, good judgement, technically advanced, and balanced in the way they operate. When I do find this, I end up with the highest level of professionalism, and a Security Officer I know can operate totally and completely to the highest of my standards. I can now sleep at night worry free, knowing that what ever is thrown at this Officer will be handled with excellent results, and providing the highest level of safety and attention to detail. I constantly put my staff through a vast field of training, to give them every tool possible to operate, and get the results needed to do the job.

I see other Security Agencies make the mistake of limiting their Security Officers well below the lines of limits. These agencies restrict what their officers can do, and require them to handle matters they have not been trained on. This is a liability. I on the other hand, train regularly, my Officers to the point of where they can operate in my position fully, and with the best judgement. I allow them to make decisions on cases and incidents. THen I support them fully, even if my personal opinion may differ, but policy is adheared to. This creates a confident and sharp officer, who will amaze you with the results they can provide.

The lines of Liability: I am sure we have heard the "crossing the line" aspect. When you cross the line, you become liable. This is true, but when we take such huge steps backwards to completely aviod liability, then we become liable. Similiar to other responsibility charged careers, we have to operate with in specific perameters. And if we fall on either side of this "bell curve" of perameters, then we are just as liable if we were to step over the line.

I can remember back just a while ago, when I took over the Mall I am currently operating. The last Director hired the biggest, meanest looking Officers, and limited them with major restricitions to operations, as they did not have the mentality to operate with good judgement. When I assumed control of this facility, I made major changes in operating procedures. One I can remember being fought on severely by the outgoing director (and for good reason for his departure), was the issue of "identification collection". I made into policy that identification of a violator was to be collected by the Security Officer. This outgoing Director stated it was illegal and a liability. I challenged him otherwise. By most all state laws, it is not illegal to ask for identification, nor to collect personal information when handling a violator. It was a liability to allow whom ever to enter private property, and assume no action when a crime was comitted in the presence of the Security Officer. Needless to say "WE ID". Another area I met resistance with, under trespassing laws, personal information is needed to complete a "Trespass Warning Order". Traditionally Malls will photograph a violator. This photgraph is attached to the notice, and kept on file. The subject returns, it is Criminal Trespassing. Photo's are excellent, but people change, especially when they wish to return and violate, with a new identity. Have you ever met a violator who has been truthful about their identity, and then to find out they were not? This is a challenge to deal with. Well, in most states, law reads as follows: Any form of "Non-Evasive" identification is permitted, but "Evasive" identification is a violation of civil rights. A photo is not evasive. Evasive is to take something physical from another with out their permission. Ever see a lawsuit where an image of time and space belongs to any one person? LOL! How about a fingerprint? You do not physically take a violators fingerprint from them, hold on to it, and not allow them to keep posession of their born finger print. We collect an image duplicate of the print, not the physical print itself. How does this play into Liability?

Ever falsely identify a subject, especially a trespassor? Oooo, its nasty. To falsely accuse a person of a crime is Liable. But if you have any form of identification that is individual and prevents false identification of a person, then you are free from that chain!

Some ideas to ponder, but as Security Personnel, we have to operate reasonably, and effectively, or there is no point to our profession!

[T202]

There was a similar case here in Michigan. A lawsuit was filed against a Meijer Store for wrongful death. The judge threw it out.

http://www.wzzm13.com/printfullstory.aspx?storyid=52286

Michigan Supreme Court in Williams vs Cunningham Drug Store state that
Imposing the duty advanced by plaintiffs is against the public interest. The inability of the government and law enforcement officials to prevent criminal attacks does not justify transferring the responsibility to a business owner such as defendant. To shift the duty of police protection from the government to the private sector would amount to advocating that members of the public resort to self-help. Such a proposition contravenes public policy

[Mall Director]

Exactly leading to my concept, not that we would ever loose a suit in these type of situations, but the chance is there, and all the liability evasion that the Private Security sector takes, being some agencies, is just as founded as going over board by no action taken.

[N. A. Corbier]

Keep in mind that a large segment of the security industry believes the following to be true:

1. Security Guards are paid observers. Their sole purpose is to observe activities and report them to the client, not to intervene in any activity.

2. Security Guards are not professional rescuers. This means that they do not save victims from bad people, save people from choking, save people with CPR, save people period. That is the job of trained professionals such as police, fire, or EMS workers.

2a. The State may make us train our employees on how to put out fire, but we will only allow them to do so if its very small. We will also tell them point blank, sound the alarm and get out. You don't make enough to fight fires.

3. Security Guards do not confront people. They are not trained in defensive tactics, and therefore should not confront people.

---

However, in the case of a grocery store security officer observing a woman entering the store while leaving the engine running, I already know what the dispatcher will say: And this is a police problem, how?

This is a rule enforcement problem, if the client does not like engines running. It is a suspicious circumstance, but law enforcement cannot intervene at this point.

In some states, yes, it is a citation offense to leave an engine running at a convience store or gas station. But its just that, a non-moving violation.

[T202]

In the case of the grocery store incident. It wasn't just the fact that the woman left her car running with the kids in it. It was being broken into, a child assaulted and the other on kidnapped.
If a security officer can just sit and observe and report this without getting involved, he needs to get a job at Wal-Mart as the greeter and get out of the security business.
He should be held responsible. But that's just my opinion.

[aka Bull]

One of the major reasons, IMHO, why we get so many security companies teaching their officers to only "observe and report" is because they (the companies) don't wish to expend the money required to train officers to a standard where they could be reasonalbe effective in judging the action(s) they needed to take in a situation.

By sticking to the "observe and report" the company is trying to limit any liability brought against them by an officer who takes action that results in his /her own injury (physical or fiscal). Thus hoping their own officer doesn't sue for failure to train, failure to supervise, etc.

It would be a bet that there would be a heck of a fight between the officer, the company, and possibly even the client, for placing the untrained officer in a situation in which his/her training and/or supervision was insufficient.

[Mall Director]

One of the major reasons, IMHO, why we get so many security companies teaching their officers to only "observe and report" is because they (the companies) don't wish to expend the money required to train officers to a standard where they could be reasonalbe effective in judging the action(s) they needed to take in a situation.

By sticking to the "observe and report" the company is trying to limit any liability brought against them by an officer who takes action that results in his /her own injury (physical or fiscal). Thus hoping their own officer doesn't sue for failure to train, failure to supervise, etc.

It would be a bet that there would be a heck of a fight between the officer, the company, and possibly even the client, for placing the untrained officer in a situation in which his/her training and/or supervision was insufficient.

I agree, and as expressed in other threads, the funding of the undercutting companies isnt there to properly train people. I would not expect any of my officers to just jump in at the first sight of an incident, thats suicide. But on the other hand, if I find out one of them stands idely by, watching an incident occur, knowing full well that our typical police response is approximately 20 minutes, and the incident itself can be handled appropriately and safely, with the fully trained officer, to include open handed PPCT and CQB tactics, then to observe and report can be done hand in hand in proactive operations, in which action is taken.

Looking at my personal issues I dela with daily, in such a heavily populated area, with a high crime rate and an already overtasked Police Agency, I can not stand around and expect the Police to be on the spot immediately, and handle all aspects when they are already facing hardships on thei rown, which I so sympathize with them full heartedly. We have to be realistic today, and realize that this cycle of criminal behavior will continue unless a pattern is broken. General consensus between our department and the local police department is that we have gained very advanced training and certifications in operating in the private sector. Take for example, a trespassing subject. Once they see our Officers, they immediately attempt to depart. This is a criminal ofense comitted in the presence of the Security Officer, and the Security Officer has the full legal right to arrest the subject. These officers, having been trained in this particular area by local and national agencies, can safely arrest said subject. If they were to call it in, and wait for response, trespasses would continue untouched as the subjects would continue to violate knowing they have more than adaquate time to depart before Police arrival. Once placed under arrest by the Security Officer, the subject is reprocessed in our controlled facility, and all the documents are completed and duplicated for the Police Officers arrival, in which the subject is cited and taken away. The Police department we work with has expressed pleasure in our ability to handle such incidents appropriately and professionally. They enjoy the fact that most of their paperwork is done before they even arrive, and have come to rely on this aspect.

This is a form of Proactive operations, and many many people find great comfort in frequenting an area where such standards are provided in such an unsafe world today.

Now of course, never would I expect an Officer to handle fires, or even major medical incidents, to include very serious criminal offenses where severe harm could fall to all involved. But the expectation of handling general and typical incidents, or incidents the Security Officer is trained in and legally covered to operate under, provides excellent environments, productive staffs, and pleased parties on all ends.