Protect Your Front Line Employees!


Prevent Situations from Escalating into Dangerous Events! ePanic Button is a PC-based incident notification system that gives everyone control and peace-of-mind. Request a Demo» Get a Free Trial»


Contact Us: www.epanicbutton.com contact@epanicbutton.com 919-701-9707


DECISIONPOINT THE SITUATION (continued from page 1)


Luna Security Services had been hired to provide security services at the concert being held at the Argon Ballroom in Chicago. The concert-goers were not searched or patted down at the Aragon's entrance. The crowd in the concert included all age groups and families and the atmosphere was calm and the crowd well-behaved.


After being hit, Sameer then turned around and saw Butt standing behind him with a knife that had a six to seven- inch-long blade in his hand. Unbeknownst to Sameer, Butt had also stabbed another man at the concert a few minutes before stabbing Sameer.


In analyzing Sameer’s claim the Court recognized that an employer or landlord may in fact be held liable in tort for the criminal acts of third parties when the employer or landlord undertakes measures to provide security, but performs the undertaking negligently. However, simply hiring the security firm alone is insufficient for there to be liability, the Court also stated that the violence must be “reasonably foreseeable” in order for there to be liability.


In the case at hand, the Court found that the concert had been relatively calm and there was no allegation that the security agents were negligently performing their duties or that they were on notice of the stabbing minutes before and failed to take action. Accordingly, the Court held that it was not reasonably foreseeable that Sameer would be stabbed and, therefore, found in favor of the defendant. However, had there been previous incidences of violence at the Aragon or had the security agency been aware of the earlier violence and failed to take action, the Court may have found differently.


LEARNING AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS


Handling potentially violent customers is tricky business for an employer or landlord. The employer or landlord needs to make sure that it protects customers and visitors from reasonably anticipated acts of violence without making security so tight that it discourages business.


Employers and landlords should undertake a review of the potential hazards and assess the potential for workplace violence. They should have a workplace violence policy in place and should hire security services when it is reasonably foreseeable that security services are necessary. One may think that an employer who hires outside security is surely taking a step toward reducing its potential liability, along with enhancing safety and security. However, there can be pitfalls. In the event of a workplace violence incident, a court may place additional scrutiny on the employer’s actions if they have hired an outside security firm. Questions may be posed about the information available to the security firm about potential hazards, the training of the security firm’s employees and what level of oversight over their actions is retained by the employer.


Continued on page 24 23


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28