Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Security guard stabbed in nightclub brawl(Salt Lake City)

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

  • Security guard stabbed in nightclub brawl(Salt Lake City)

    A security guard was stabbed outside a Murray club while trying to break up a parking-lot brawl between patrons.
    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4698087

  • #2
    He should have stayed out of it. No reason to get involved in a dogfight, especially when both parties are responsible.
    Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

    Comment


    • #3
      If you're going to get involved (due to it being part of your job, and therefore a legal duty to intervene), do it safely... Spray the crap out of them both.
      Some Kind of Commando Leader

      "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

      Comment


      • #4
        It always amazes me how people instantly turn on the security guards or innocent bystanders trying to help.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
          If you're going to get involved (due to it being part of your job, and therefore a legal duty to intervene), do it safely... Spray the crap out of them both.
          Yeah! And use a MK9 with cs/oc

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mr. Security
            He should have stayed out of it. No reason to get involved in a dogfight, especially when both parties are responsible.
            This would not be an acceptable course of action, as cases of negligence brought against security companies for failure to act when they have a duty to do so have repeatedly shown.
            "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

            "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

            "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

            "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

            Comment


            • #7
              It depends on the contractual duties outlined. If he had a contractual duty to only observe and report, and the public had no reason to believe that he was protecting anything, then all he has to do is call 911.

              if the public has a reason to believe he's there to protect them, or a contractual duty to protect exists... Then the company is looking at a lawsuit.
              Some Kind of Commando Leader

              "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                It depends on the contractual duties outlined. If he had a contractual duty to only observe and report, and the public had no reason to believe that he was protecting anything, then all he has to do is call 911.

                if the public has a reason to believe he's there to protect them, or a contractual duty to protect exists... Then the company is looking at a lawsuit.
                Not only the reasonable expectation of the public, but other factors also will determine the duty of the owners of an establishment with respect to the protection duty.

                Two such factors are whether the type of adverse incident that occurred was either predictable or easily discoverable (see Inbau, Farber, etc.). To make this determination, the court will apply one of two standards - either the "reasonable person" standard or the "totality of circumstances" standard and will look at both the specific history of the establishment in question as well as the general history of similar businesses, and businesses in the area of the bar.

                In this case, we have a fight in the parking lot outside a bar, and by either standard it's not terribly difficult to predict how this would very likely come down.

                There is a widely held, but mistaken, belief that clients can simply "decide" what level of security they need...for instance, that all they need in the way of security services is "observe and report". This is not true any more than a trucking company can simply "decide" how liable they will be if their delivery van runs over someone in the street.

                Liability is not created by, nor resolved by, the mere terms of the security contract. Duty - and therefore liability - is created in the law of negligence, and other areas of law that determine what level of safety the business owes to its guests, visitors, neighbors, employees or other invitees (and therefore, the risk that they face). I've found that students can understand this principle of liability better when the issue is framed in terms of a physical hazard on the premises rather than a criminal act.

                We in security owe it to our clients to be sure they understand this as well, and that they have consulted legal counsel to determine what special duties or risks they have and that the security contract should address. Our own liability arises in representing to the client that their security needs have been adequately met by the service we are selling them if in fact they have not been met at all. "Buyer beware" is no longer widely applied to situations in which one of the parties (the security company) is expected to have special expertise upon which the buyer reasonably relies.
                Last edited by SecTrainer; 12-03-2006, 06:05 AM.
                "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                Comment


                • #9
                  This is interesting, I used to be of that belief (that clients cannot decide, that the courts do), but I came across several Florida Court documents where the judges indeed decided that "no expectation of security was provided," and therefore... The plaintiff suing for damages and recovery against the HOA or condo assocation for failing provide adequate security... failed. Miserably.

                  It may be only in Florida, but basically... clients can enter into contracts where there is no actual security services provided, and they are immune from adequate security provision requirements. The company argued that the guard was not a guard, but only an untrained observer there to manage traffic and call the police, not to confront potential trespassers.
                  Some Kind of Commando Leader

                  "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                    This is interesting, I used to be of that belief (that clients cannot decide, that the courts do), but I came across several Florida Court documents where the judges indeed decided that "no expectation of security was provided," and therefore... The plaintiff suing for damages and recovery against the HOA or condo assocation for failing provide adequate security... failed. Miserably.

                    It may be only in Florida, but basically... clients can enter into contracts where there is no actual security services provided, and they are immune from adequate security provision requirements. The company argued that the guard was not a guard, but only an untrained observer there to manage traffic and call the police, not to confront potential trespassers.
                    A client's security liability is not created by the law of contract, nor can the client be absolved (or made "immune" from) such liability by the terms of a security contract (or a contract for "no security", as you suggest). The liability arises from the law of negligence. If I knew the name of the case you refer to, I'd be happy to research it and explain where you are misunderstanding the obvious differences between the legal questions that were involved and those that I am talking about.

                    Allow me to quote from Inbau, et al in Protective Security Law - 2nd Edition, in Chapter 11 entitled "Civil Liability for Inadequate Security Duties":

                    "A business proprietor is held to have a duty to protect his business invitees...against known dangers and also against dangers which he could discover with reasonable care" (188).

                    A little later, the authors assert that:

                    "Even if there otherwise would not be a duty to provide security OR A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SECURITY (emphasis mine), the representation to patrons (verbally or by the presence of security officers, etc.) that a certain level of security will be provided may impose either a contractual duty to do so (meaning an implied contract) or IMPOSE A DUTY TO DO SO based on the patron's reasonable reliance on such representations" (192).

                    This discussion arose regarding a fight in a bar parking lot, so let's turn now to page 193, where the authors have reserved a special section of this analysis for businesses that serve liquor and which "should have some special concern about their liability for the criminal or even negligent acts of others", specifically:

                    "Court decisions and statutes in many jurisdictions impose 'dram shop' liability on such businesses, whereby the victims of car accidents OR OF ASSAULTS BY INTOXICATED INDIVIDUALS WHO OBTAINED THEIR LIQUOR AT THE BUSINESS may be able to sue not only the consumer but also the seller." (193).

                    I could go on, but I think the point I'm making is fairly clear. Just because a client signs a security contract with particular terms does not mean the contract is adequate and does not mean that the client has made themselves "immune" from their security liabilities. That is why security companies, as the presumed experts in the field, should themselves be aware of what the client's liabilities are and refuse to sell contracts that do not meet the client's risk profile - which means not just their threat profile, but their legal risks as well.
                    Last edited by SecTrainer; 12-03-2006, 02:42 PM.
                    "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                    "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                    "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                    "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                    Comment

                    Leaderboard

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X