Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do You Think This Is Grounds For Termination?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SecTrainer
    replied
    [QUOTE=sgtnewby;71082]
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post

    I hear what you're saying, but I doubt they used tickets, and if they did, I doubt they had a disclaimer on the back. I worked at a night club for a couple years. We had a mandatory coat check during the winter months.

    The tickets we gave (that you had to pay for ), were that same tickets you get at the state fair for rides and such. There was no disclaimer on the back, just a ticket with a number.

    No disclaimer, I would imagine someone would have a case. At the hospital, medical staff take inventory of patients' belongings. The sheet says we are not responsible for lost or stolen items. I can promise you, if something goes missing, the county attorney says we have to reimburse them for it.

    What's worse, is that all reimbursement comes out of the security budget. It doesn't matter that we had nothing to do with the property disappearing, or that we most likely had no contact with the patient whatsoever, we still, per hospital policy, have to pay it. So our budget shrinks, while the department responsible suffers no repercussions for their negligence. But that's a gripe for another thread....

    I'm not making my point clearly, sorry. I am not saying whether the OP did or did not use a ticket/disclaimer (I have no idea). This is not what I'm talking about.

    What I was responding to specifically was your blanket statement that "possession = responsibility" and showing just one way that this would not be true. There are many others as well.

    One factor is the relationship of one party to the other. A hospital patient is in a very unique and different relationship to the hospital on many grounds compared to the relationship of a customer to a store, and there's a totally separate body of case law pertaining to the hospital situation, so you shouldn't draw any straight lines from the hospital situation to the one that we're talking about in this thread.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 08-22-2008, 01:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Quebec law does not accept the "owner is not responsible" signs.

    Leave a comment:


  • sgtnewby
    replied
    [QUOTE=SecTrainer;71062]
    Originally posted by sgtnewby View Post

    Have you ever read the small print on the back of your ticket when you park in a commercial parking lot? You'll see that this legalese specifically states that parking your car shall NOT be considered creation of a bailment (which is transfer of possession for safekeeping), and specifically states that the parking lot assumes no responsibility for your vehicle or its contents. This is exactly analagous to checking a bag: All that would be necessary is a similar disclaimer on the bag claim ticket given to a customer when they check their bag (plus, perhaps, some appropriate signage), to the effect that there is no bailment being created and that the store assumes no responsibility for bag or contents.

    In the same vein, it used to be common for nightclubs to have "hat-check" or "coat-check" service, and the ticket you got for your property always had a similar denial of responsibility printed on it.

    How can the parking garage/store/nightclub do this? Well, a bailment is essentially a special form of contract that both parties must agree to in order to be created, and all they have to do is to specifically deny that any such agreement will be implied on their part by the fact that you have temporarily placed your property in their custody. In other words, they basically refuse to accept possession, in a legal sense. Absent such a bailment, which if created would have to specifically state exactly what responsibility the possessor is assuming, by the way, there is no transfer of possession for safekeeping...in the legal sense of possession. There is no such thing as a unilateral transfer of possession (where one party forces possession on another), because all it takes is for one party to refuse to accept legal possession.

    Have such terms been challenged? Yes, but such challenges are rarely successful unless there is shown to be some very egregious form of negligence on the part of management.

    Check it out for yourself. Next time you park in a lot, tell the attendant that your digital camera was stolen out of your car and you want the garage to pay for it. (Be sure to wear cotton in your ears so the attendant's laughter doesn't damage your hearing.)
    I hear what you're saying, but I doubt they used tickets, and if they did, I doubt they had a disclaimer on the back. I worked at a night club for a couple years. We had a mandatory coat check during the winter months.

    The tickets we gave (that you had to pay for ), were that same tickets you get at the state fair for rides and such. There was no disclaimer on the back, just a ticket with a number.

    No disclaimer, I would imagine someone would have a case. At the hospital, medical staff take inventory of patients' belongings. The sheet says we are not responsible for lost or stolen items. I can promise you, if something goes missing, the county attorney says we have to reimburse them for it.

    What's worse, is that all reimbursement comes out of the security budget. It doesn't matter that we had nothing to do with the property disappearing, or that we most likely had no contact with the patient whatsoever, we still, per hospital policy, have to pay it. So our budget shrinks, while the department responsible suffers no repercussions for their negligence. But that's a gripe for another thread....

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    [QUOTE=integrator97;71066]
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post

    Ahhh, but the difference here SecTrainer is possibly two fold. First, the store is requiring you to leave your bag with them, as opposed to a parking lot or hat check, which is optional. Second, I doubt and Enforcer did not indicate that they gave out a ticket, and if so, I doubt that it has any statement on it, but we'll see if he tells us. Of course they could put lockers with keys at the front.
    It's optional to shop in the store in the first place, right? There's no difference here. It's still completely voluntary. You don't like their policy, or the terms under which you check your bag, you're completely free to walk out. If you do stay and check your bag under the store's policy, you're voluntarily accepting the terms they set forth.

    Also, I was not saying that Enforcer had given out a ticket, merely responding to your assertion that taking possession would necessarily transfer responsibility for the contents, as you suggested because your assertion is not the law. It might make common sense, or even moral sense, that the store would be responsible for the bag but it's not the law of bailment. The store can choose to refute or refuse the assumption of such responsibility.

    There are many situations where people "check" their property, but where there is no transfer of possession per se in a legal sense, and nothing more than a very broad general duty of care is legally owed to the person who owns the property. For instance, airlines owe you a broad responsibility not to lose your baggage (perhaps), but good luck with any other claim against them (damage, breakage of contents, loss of contents, etc.)...

    It's a fairly complex area of law and I'm just giving you the high points here. Basically, transfer of physical possession does not necessarily equate to transfer of legal possession (which would also transfer certain duties).
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 08-20-2008, 01:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    [QUOTE=SecTrainer;71062]
    Originally posted by sgtnewby View Post

    Have you ever read the small print on the back of your ticket when you park in a commercial parking lot? You'll see that this legalese specifically states that parking your car shall NOT be considered creation of a bailment (which is transfer of possession for safekeeping), and specifically states that the parking lot assumes no responsibility for your vehicle or its contents. This is exactly analagous to checking a bag: All that would be necessary is a similar disclaimer on the bag claim ticket given to a customer when they check their bag (plus, perhaps, some appropriate signage), to the effect that there is no bailment being created and that the store assumes no responsibility for bag or contents.

    In the same vein, it used to be common for nightclubs to have "hat-check" or "coat-check" service, and the ticket you got for your property always had a similar denial of responsibility printed on it.

    How can the parking garage/store/nightclub do this? Well, a bailment is essentially a special form of contract that both parties must agree to in order to be created, and all they have to do is to specifically deny that any such agreement will be implied on their part by the fact that you have temporarily placed your property in their custody. In other words, they basically refuse to accept possession, in a legal sense. Absent such a bailment, which if created would have to specifically state exactly what responsibility the possessor is assuming, by the way, there is no transfer of possession for safekeeping...in the legal sense of possession. There is no such thing as a unilateral transfer of possession (where one party forces possession on another), because all it takes is for one party to refuse to accept legal possession.

    Have such terms been challenged? Yes, but such challenges are rarely successful unless there is shown to be some very egregious form of negligence on the part of management.

    Check it out for yourself. Next time you park in a lot, tell the attendant that your digital camera was stolen out of your car and you want the garage to pay for it. (Be sure to wear cotton in your ears so the attendant's laughter doesn't damage your hearing.)
    Ahhh, but the difference here SecTrainer is possibly two fold. First, the store is requiring you to leave your bag with them, as opposed to a parking lot or hat check, which is optional. Second, I doubt and Enforcer did not indicate that they gave out a ticket, and if so, I doubt that it has any statement on it, but we'll see if he tells us. Of course they could put lockers with keys at the front.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeff194307
    replied
    I am one who believes in simple and to the point conversation. I have a question about this procedure. How does one prevent the "customer" from claiming that a credit card and/or cash was missing from the bag when they left the store? I can just see the allegations flying about how the guard must have taken my property. I say do your job as best you can without placing yourself and your company in a position of having to defend yourself in court.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    [QUOTE=sgtnewby;71053]
    Originally posted by The Enforcer View Post

    OMG, wake up... Are you serious? When you take possesion, you assume responsibility. I fully agree with Mr. Baillie.
    Have you ever read the small print on the back of your ticket when you park in a commercial parking lot? You'll see that this legalese specifically states that parking your car shall NOT be considered creation of a bailment (which is transfer of possession for safekeeping), and specifically states that the parking lot assumes no responsibility for your vehicle or its contents. This is exactly analagous to checking a bag: All that would be necessary is a similar disclaimer on the bag claim ticket given to a customer when they check their bag (plus, perhaps, some appropriate signage), to the effect that there is no bailment being created and that the store assumes no responsibility for bag or contents.

    In the same vein, it used to be common for nightclubs to have "hat-check" or "coat-check" service, and the ticket you got for your property always had a similar denial of responsibility printed on it.

    How can the parking garage/store/nightclub do this? Well, a bailment is essentially a special form of contract that both parties must agree to in order to be created, and all they have to do is to specifically deny that any such agreement will be implied on their part by the fact that you have temporarily placed your property in their custody. In other words, they basically refuse to accept possession, in a legal sense. Absent such a bailment, which if created would have to specifically state exactly what responsibility the possessor is assuming, by the way, there is no transfer of possession for safekeeping...in the legal sense of possession. There is no such thing as a unilateral transfer of possession (where one party forces possession on another), because all it takes is for one party to refuse to accept legal possession.

    Have such terms been challenged? Yes, but such challenges are rarely successful unless there is shown to be some very egregious form of negligence on the part of management.

    Check it out for yourself. Next time you park in a lot, tell the attendant that your digital camera was stolen out of your car and you want the garage to pay for it. (Be sure to wear cotton in your ears so the attendant's laughter doesn't damage your hearing.)
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 08-20-2008, 12:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • sgtnewby
    replied
    [QUOTE=The Enforcer;71036]
    Originally posted by Curtis Baillie View Post

    Techinically when I take any bag, per company policy, neither the agency nor the store assumes responsibility for the bag in question or the items in it (as I was told by several store managers). It is the customer's choice whether they want to bring bags into the store (presently excluding females with purses due to the many complaints it elicits). If they want to shop in the store without being constantly monitored and followed by me at a three foot radius until they are finished, they will leave the bags up front and I will store them in a safe place. There was, however, one manager that was concerned about the store's liability for customers' items and simply made me check everybody's bags on the way in and out without taking them.
    OMG, wake up... Are you serious? When you take possesion, you assume responsibility. I fully agree with Mr. Baillie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    [QUOTE=The Enforcer;71036]
    Originally posted by Curtis Baillie View Post

    Techinically when I take any bag, per company policy, neither the agency nor the store assumes responsibility for the bag in question or the items in it (as I was told by several store managers). It is the customer's choice whether they want to bring bags into the store (presently excluding females with purses due to the many complaints it elicits). If they want to shop in the store without being constantly monitored and followed by me at a three foot radius until they are finished, they will leave the bags up front and I will store them in a safe place. There was, however, one manager that was concerned about the store's liability for customers' items and simply made me check everybody's bags on the way in and out without taking them.
    You and your "managers" are very wrong on this. The "dollar" company you are posted at is a litigators dream come true. If this is a chain-wide policy it will take just one big payout and their policy will change - fast.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Enforcer
    replied
    [QUOTE=Curtis Baillie;71024]
    Originally posted by The Enforcer View Post
    Who would be responsible for the purses? Picture this! From a female customer, after receiving her purse back when leaving the store ....... Someone ..... quick call the police. I had a $10,000 ring in my purse and now it's gone. Here's my receipt for the ring. (Pulling it from her pocket). Guess who has a problem? BTW - this really happened. The chain no longer requires customers to leave bags at the service desk.

    Bottom line - if your policies require their customers to leave their bags at a service desk you (the company) is responsible for claims of missing items.

    Not a good idea.
    Techinically when I take any bag, per company policy, neither the agency nor the store assumes responsibility for the bag in question or the items in it (as I was told by several store managers). It is the customer's choice whether they want to bring bags into the store (presently excluding females with purses due to the many complaints it elicits). If they want to shop in the store without being constantly monitored and followed by me at a three foot radius until they are finished, they will leave the bags up front and I will store them in a safe place. There was, however, one manager that was concerned about the store's liability for customers' items and simply made me check everybody's bags on the way in and out without taking them.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by integrator97 View Post
    I don't know how anyone can discriminate. Me, I'm not prejudice AT ALL. I hate everybody.
    Hey! That's my expression!!

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    I don't know how anyone can discriminate. Me, I'm not prejudice AT ALL. I hate everybody.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yardstick
    replied
    Today I did the Security Officer Basic Course. I was told the quickest way to get fired was to discriminate at work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    [QUOTE=The Enforcer;70988]
    Originally posted by Maelstrom View Post
    Perhaps the guy you discriminated against? LOL


    ... would you have made a female surrender their purse prior to entry? QUOTE]

    As I stated earlier, I would love to be able to pull everybody's purse that enters the store to provide an obstacle for shoplifters (women with huge purses are among the worst) but the management of the stores I work at does not allow me to do that.
    Who would be responsible for the purses? Picture this! From a female customer, after receiving her purse back when leaving the store ....... Someone ..... quick call the police. I had a $10,000 ring in my purse and now it's gone. Here's my receipt for the ring. (Pulling it from her pocket). Guess who has a problem? BTW - this really happened. The chain no longer requires customers to leave bags at the service desk.

    Bottom line - if your policies require their customers to leave their bags at a service desk you (the company) is responsible for claims of missing items.

    Not a good idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Enforcer
    replied
    [QUOTE=Maelstrom;70958]Perhaps the guy you discriminated against? LOL


    ... would you have made a female surrender their purse prior to entry? QUOTE]

    As I stated earlier, I would love to be able to pull everybody's purse that enters the store to provide an obstacle for shoplifters (women with huge purses are among the worst) but the management of the stores I work at does not allow me to do that.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X