A security expert witness viewpoint on basic security measures: Security cameras can help deter criminals, but security guards may be better, says William J. Birks, Jr., CPP, a security expert witness and consultant in West Chester, Pennsylvania. He cautions that forgoing security staff to save money can backfire. “This creates a security vulnerability for the store,” says Birks. “What they think they save in manpower, they lose in inventory. Properly trained security officers can be one of your best and least costly deterrents to shoplifting loss.”

Take Care When Hiring Seasonal Employees

Many business owners overlook “insider threats” – the potential risks posed by their own employees, experts say. This is especially important during the holidays, when businesses often hire seasonal staff to handle increased traffic and extended hours. Birks says seasonal employees “may not have the same loyalty that your full-time employees tend to exhibit.” After all, they know they won’t be working there in two months.

Conduct thorough background checks when hiring seasonal staff, and remind your year-round employees to alert management if they notice anything amiss, Birks says.

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.

Security Expert Witness Case Analysis: Two male Plaintiffs were socializing with friends at a night club when two males in their mid-twenties approached the men.  In an unprovoked attack the two aggressors simultaneously struck the Plaintiffs several times knocking them to the ground for no apparent reason. While in their attempt to get to their feet both became aware that they were suffering from razor type lacerations to their face and extremities.  The Plaintiffs required emergency medical attention; one required over one-hundred stitches to close the gash to his face.

Security Expert Witness Analysis: A review of the club’s security program revealed that all patron, invitees and guest were required to only gain access to the club via the front main entrance.  In support of that policy the club positioned security personnel at that front entrance to check patrons for; proper age identification, metal objects (such as knives, guns and steel knuckles by wanding and /or pat down process), signs of visual intoxication and enforcement of the club’s dress code policy.  In the material provided for review it became evident that at least one of the men later convicted of the attack on the Plaintiffs had gained access to through the club’s rear VIP entrance where there was no such wanding process employed.  Based on the known risk the Defendant in this matter had a duty to provide a reasonable standard of care for its patrons, invites, and employees and they failed to do so.  The injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs were the direct result of the conduct of the Defendant. Plaintiffs prevailed.

Security Expert Witness Case Analysis: A woman drove her car into the parking lot of a US based retailer. She secured a parking space abutting a pedestrian walkway that ran perpendicular from the store’s entrance/exit down the middle of the parking lot. As she exited her car and turned right onto the walkway the woman was unaware that she was being observed by two males that were “cruising” the lot in a stolen automobile. As the woman was approaching the end of the walkway a car passed in front of her (from her left to right) then made a right turn, against the traffic pattern, and began to slow down. As the car slowed, a man seated in the passenger’s seat jumped out of the car as it rolled to a stop. The man quickly approached the woman from behind just as she arrived at the end of the walkway and lunged at the handbag the woman was carrying over her shoulder. The force of the attack caused the woman to be pulled backwards onto the ground. The man continued trying to pry the purse away from the woman but the woman would not relent. As the fruitlessness of his endeavor quickly became apparent to the assailant, he retreated back to the car from which he came. The car sped away, leaving the woman on the ground suffering from multiple injuries, requiring emergency medical attention.

Security Expert Witness Analysis: Research revealed that parking lot incidents were not uncommon to this retailer rather; they represented a majority of the reported on-premises incidents. Moreover, the retailer possessed significant prior knowledge of these incidents, the elevated potential for Aggravated Assault at the address and accepted responsibility for securing the parking lot. In order to assist in reducing incident occurrence in their parking lot the retailer employed the services of a contract security service, the selected provider was contractually mandated by the retailer to provide “continuous patrol” of the parking lot area. A review of testimony and video of the incident concluded that, using one security patrol vehicle, the security firm could complete one round of the premises every fifteen minutes. The review also revealed that approximately three plus minutes of every round was dedicated to patrolling the area behind the retailer’s building. When scheduled breaks and lunch were factored into the equation the front parking lot was void of security protection approximately twenty-five percent of every hour. The woman in question was assaulted in the front parking lot during one of those times when the roving security patrol was patrolling the area behind the store. It is also clear from the provided material that the retailer failed to provide an adequate number of security patrol /vehicles for the size and known risk of the premises. It was the opinion of this consultant that the injuries sustained by the woman were the direct result of the conduct of the retailer.