Over the last decade, the implementation of numerous safety mechanisms in vehicles has reduced the number of motor vehicle accidents nationwide. As a result, personal injury firms across the United States have begun pivoting to target other industries, with a lead target being companies providing security services. 

In states like California and Washington, public perception of security guards is low, and most people are aware that such security guards are, in most circumstances, unable to physically engage with would-be or even known wrongdoers. This is not helped by the limited requirements for becoming a licensed security guard. Now, plaintiffs' firms use this limited training and licensing system, combined with low public perception, to target security guard companies. The typical causes of action seen in security guard cases are general negligence combined with negligent hiring and/or training. 

What plaintiffs' firms don't seem to account for is the limited scope of what a security guard may do. Would-be plaintiffs tend to make one of two claims: 1）they were harmed by a security guard, or 2) they were hurt because the security guard did not protect them. 

Unlike police officers, who "protect and serve", security guards generally "observe and report." This results in significant pushback against plaintiffs' firms that see an injury and demand justice in the form of compensation. There are several steps security companies can take to further train their staff and to be proactive in deterring future lawsuits.

1. Scope of Work

First, a security guard should be absolutely certain what they have been hired to do. Is it to observe and report? Be a visual deterrent? Protect property? Are they armed and intended to protect customers? At the end of the day, while the overwhelming majority of security contracts do not include a provision to protect customers or the public, each guard needs to be unwavering in their understanding of what tasks they are paid to do. 

Guards that go outside their scope are the easiest targets for litigation. As a result, they open up not only the company, but sometimes themselves individually, to liability. If the security guards are each certain of their scope of duties, many incidents can be avoided entirely.

2. Who Does The Guard Work For?

Second, security guards must know that they are the employees of the security company, not the location where they are patrolling or stationed. Guards who mistake their chain of command often perform or accept tasks outside their employment, possibly even in breach of the contract between the security company and the location they are stationed. 

While this may seem benign, the guard may once again be setting up the company, and/or themselves personally, for liability. If the guard takes on additional tasks outside the scope of their work, this often creates unintended consequences, including expectations to continue to perform those additional duties. These tasks can be as simple as requests for assistance by other employees of their patrol area or straying from their post/patrol route, resulting in them being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In these scenarios, security guards who regularly perform tasks outside their duties create expectations from managers and/or employees of their stationed location to continue performing such tasks. Then, if something goes wrong, these same managers will point the finger at both the security guard and their employer, because the security guard is not their employee. 

Security guards need to be trained to know exactly who is in their chain of command. This includes knowing when to say no, and to whom. When such an issue occurs, guards should be trained to document the issue and notify their employer. 

3. Document Everything

Did a security guard have an unusual interaction with a manager or employee during their shift? Was a security guard asked to do something outside their scope of work? Does the security guard have a good relationship with the employee/management at their post? Were there any notes of an altercation or incident that occurred during a shift? 

No matter how big or small something seems at the time, record everything. In addition to daily incident or patrol reports, extra information relating to their engagement with others at their post or any concerns they may have noticed during their shift will be invaluable should a lawsuit ever be filed for that location. Having something as simple as a note regarding an unusual conversation or a small extra task being performed, and why, can make a huge difference when litigation comes up relating to a security guard's scope of work. It is better to have too much information rather than too little. 

Knowing what they need to do to work for YOU is what matters. Patrol logs, daily journals, and keeping an eye and ear out at their stationed location are small steps that can be taken to keep an open flow of information coming from the security guard, and give you a leg up when litigation creeps up.

4. How And When To Use Force

This next item seems obvious, but is a regular issue. When you train your security guards, are they trained on when they can use force or physically touch another person? Are they armed for this purpose? Are they expected to use force to protect people or to break up altercations? Or should they stay back and report it to the proper authorities? Can the guard ever use force? Is it just in defense of others? 

If every security guard knew the answer to these questions, there would be far fewer open litigation matters in this field. 

Every company has different regulations, and each location will have its own rules on top of those. Every security guard must be educated and routinely updated about the guidelines for the use of force in their specific role. This can become more confusing for security guards who have multiple stations with different expectations and duties at each. 

There are very few instances easier for a plaintiff firm to latch onto than a security guard using force without justification, or one who was never permitted to use force in the first place. Not only does this open up liability beyond general negligence, but a jury will also rarely be sympathetic to a security guard who unjustly uses force on another person. 

Conclusion

Though many of these measures may seem obvious, if these were followed by all security guards and all security companies, the number of lawsuits being filed against security guard companies would not be on the rise, and the cases that do get filed would be easier to defend.

Take the extra time to train your security guards. An untrained or unprepared security guard is a huge legal risk for a security company. Preventing litigation entirely may be impossible, but there are many things you can do to prevent it, or at least make it less burdensome.