Security Expert Witness Case Synopsis: A plant worker left the premises without authorization, only to return with a gun later in the shift and shoot his supervisor (Plaintiff). The plaintiff brought a negligence action against the security services company stating that they failed to maintain a sufficient and effective security presence.

Security Expert Witness Analysis: A review of the materials revealed that in this case the security services company worked at the pleasure and direction of the plant. It was the plant that failed to properly balance the probability of harm, the gravity of the resulting injury, and the burden of precautions adequate to prevent the harm. The site specific post orders revealed that the security officers were not responsible for access control. The security services company was hired to perform certain duties and responsibilities that were specifically spelled out in the agreement between the parties, none of which stated that the security officers were hired or intended to protect the plaintiff or other plant employees from physical injury. The agreement did not set any security officer responsibility towards employee protection.

For safety precautions, the security service company did recommend the construction of a new road into the plant which would include a gate to restrict access into the site. The plant declined to act on the recommendation.

As with the case above, courts have been generally reluctant to extend third-party beneficiary status to employees; however, the recent $46.5 million dollar settlement against the security company demonstrates that the tide may be changing. In that case, even though the unarmed U.S. Security Associates security officers called 911, they failed to warn other plant employees or attempt to contact management. Plaintiff’s counsel was quoted as saying that guards can’t simply run away in the middle of a crisis, they actually have to act like security guards.

Result: Case settled.