U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Delicate Balance - The Need for Security and the Limits of Liability

NCJ Number
81662
Journal
Security World Volume: 19 Issue: 2 Dated: (February 1982) Pages: 22-26
Author(s)
W Siatt
Date Published
1982
Length
5 pages
Annotation
The problem of lawsuits against the security industry is discussed, with attention to the extent of the problem, the types of litigation taken, and measures the security industry can take to limit responsibility.
Abstract
Lawsuits generally involve the security personnel, the security department, and the company alleged by a plaintiff to have committed some action punishable by law. They can be civil or criminal in nature. The number of corporate dollars lost through court or jury judgments against security personnel and their employers is substantial and may increase. The most frequent source of litigation involving security is a tort action. The most common problem is an overreaction by a guard in a confrontation situation, resulting in a suit for battery, unlawful search and seizure, or some other action. Although a situation involving negligence on the part of security personnel is more difficult to prove, new State legislation and precedent-setting court decisions are making security personnel and their companies more open to liability suits. Most lawsuits involve security guards' action or inaction and generally name not only guards as defendants but include the guards' supervisor, the guards' company, and the guards' and the guard company's employer. Thus, organizations using guards or guard services may want to include various managerial and legal defenses to protect against liability in the event of a suit. Additionally, companies should screen security guards to avoid potential liability problems, although the ability to screen and investigate an applicant is limited. Typical jury awards and a discussion of malpractice are included. A table illustrating the forms of comparative negligence in each State is provided.

Downloads

No download available

Availability