Recent Court Decisions
Name of Case: Dunbar v The Paris Hotel
Type of Action: Negligent security and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training
Court & Case: Nevada Clark County, Nevada, No. A-420488, Oct. 20, 2003.
Defense Verdict: Costs of $120,000 assigned to the plaintiff. An appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.
Attorney for Defendant: Elizabeth Brennan, Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, Las Vegas, Nev., 703-383-8888.
Security Expert for Defendant: Norman D. Bates, Liability Consultants, Inc.
OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION: The plaintiff, Dr. Arati Dunbar, claimed that she was assaulted by the casino security staff while sitting with her husband at Gustav's Bar in the casino. The staff responded to a disturbance being created by the plaintiff's inebriated husband. While security attempted to calm him, Mr. Dunbar threw a strawberry at one of the security guards hitting him in the face. Thereafter, the security staff handcuffed and detained Mr. Dunbar. At that same time, they handcuffed the plaintiff who had approached and grabbed one of the security officers. The security staff testified that Dr. Dunbar had interfered with the lawful arrest of Mr. Dunbar. They escorted both parties to the security room.
The plaintiff put forth claims of negligent security and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training of the security officers. The plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries to her shoulder during the incident, requiring surgery and hindering her career as an orthopedic surgeon.
Norman Bates, Defendant's security expert, testified that the security staff had an obligation to protect other patrons from the potentially harmful misconduct of an unruly patron (Mr. Dunbar) and that the security staff had to act within a matter of seconds to respond to that perceived threat. He further testified that the plaintiff interfered with the lawful actions of the security staff who were taking steps to control the disorderly and disruptive conduct of her husband.
Additionally, Mr. Bates testified that the officers were acting consistent with the policies and procedures of the hotel in the handling of intoxicated patrons, and that if they did not act to restrain and remove both parties and someone else was injured as a result, they could have been held civilly liable. Further, that according to the Nevada Gaming Regulations, the hotel could have been subject to penalties if it allowed any conduct in the gaming establishment that reflected on the repute of the State of Nevada and acted as a detriment to the gaming industry.
Name of Case: Chance v AMLI
Type of Action: Negligent Security
Type of Injuries: Abduction and Rape
Court & Case: U. S. Eastern District of Texas Court, Marshall Division, Case 205CV-464-TJW
Verdict/Settlement Amount: Jury verdict for the Plaintiff of $950,000
Attorney for Plaintiff: Todd Clement, The Clement Law Firm, (972) 250-6363
Security Expert for Plaintiff: Norman D. Bates, Liability Consultants, Inc.
OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION: The Plaintiff was a resident at the AMLI Breckinridge Point Apartments in Richardson, Texas. She was abducted from her apartment and subsequently raped by her ex-husband. The assailant had burglarized the apartment unit earlier that day by climbing a ladder he had placed in plain view against the Plaintiff’s second floor balcony. He smashed his way through the glass of the patio door and returned later to wait in hiding for the Plaintiff, who was unaware of the unlawful entry into her unit.
The maintenance manager for the apartment complex had observed the ladder placed against the Plaintiff’s second floor balcony, but failed to investigate or notify anyone, even though he testified that he was suspicious.
Mr. Bates testified that, in addition to the inherent risk of burglary into apartment units generally, there was a substantially increased risk of burglary to the Plaintiff’s unit, as well as other more egregious criminal offenses, when a ladder was placed outside her second floor unit. A ladder placed in this manner should have been suspicious, especially to the service manager, who was the individual responsible for overseeing all maintenance work performed at the site by AMLI employees and outside vendors. The patio door of the Plaintiff’s second floor unit was readily visible from the ground area immediately adjacent to the unit. As such, any diligent investigation would have revealed that the patio door had been shattered which, coupled with the presence of the ladder, should have alerted the maintenance manager to the presence of potential criminal activity
Mr. Bates opined that the failure to investigate, inquire further, and notify the individuals noted above was in clear violation of AMLI procedures governing such activity, as acknowledged by AMLI employees in their depositions, and was also a failure to comply with good and accepted practices for the apartment industry.
Name of Case: Deacon v. Santa Barbara City College
Type of Action: Negligent Hiring and Supervision
Type of Injuries: Rape/Psychological injuries
Court & Case: Santa Barbara County Superior Court, Case No. 1186288
Verdict/Settlement Amount: $1 million settlement
Attorney for Plaintiff: Law Offices of John H. Howard, (805) 644-5894
Security Expert for Plaintiff: Norman D. Bates, Liability Consultants, Inc.
OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION: The Plaintiff was a student at Santa Barbara City College (SBCC) and was raped by a SBCC security officer while he was escorting her in a campus security vehicle. The assailant was from Malawi, Africa, and had been in the United States for six months prior to being hired as a part-time student security officer and had been employed for about 2½ years prior to rape. The Plaintiff put forth claims of negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training of the security officer.
Norman Bates, Plaintiff's security expert, testified that there are substantial risks attendant to the employment of security officers given the nature of their responsibilities and duties especially in light of the fact that they are placed in a position of trust with both actual and apparent authority. These risks require that thorough pre-employment screening be conducted of such applicants by prospective employers. Mr. Bates opined that SBCC employed Kafatia without conducting any pre-employment screening, in spite of the risks posed by the position to be filled and contrary to recommended national crime prevention and campus protection practices for colleges and universities.
Mr. Bates testified that it was impossible for the college to obtain criminal history information from the country of Malawi and that, given the risks associated with the employment of security officers in a campus setting, it was unreasonable and inappropriate to hire an individual as a security officer whose background could not be verified.
Mr. Bates further testified that there was a history of misconduct and, as such, an increased risk of inappropriate behavior in this case due to the total lack of supervision of the student security officers working the weekend graveyard shift, that the defendants should have reallocated their existing workforce to provide 24-hour supervision coverage.
In light of the fact that the security department utterly failed to supervise student security officers on the weekend graveyard shift, including Kafatia, and the fact that it was extremely difficult if not impossible to perform a background check on Kafatia, he should not have been placed in the position of a security officer. Kafatia could have still been employed at the college in another, lower risk position.
Name of Case: Novak v.Club Zei, et al.
Type of Action: Negligent Security/Third Party Assault - Nightclub
Type of Injuries: Head Injuries/Brain Damage
Court: U.S. District Court, Washington, DC
Verdict/Settlement Amount: $4.1 million jury verdict
Attorney for Plaintiff: Patrick Regan, Regan, Zambri & Long LLC, (202) 463-3030
Security Expert for Plaintiff: Norman D. Bates, Liability Consultants, Inc.
OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION: Plaintiffs were patrons at Club Zei in Washington DC. The plaintiffs were attacked by a group of assailants when they left the club through the exit door. There was no security assigned to the exit door area.
Mr. Bates testified that the risk of unruly behavior is inherent when patrons are potentially intoxicated and that the end of the evening, at closing time, is inherently more dangerous than other times of the evening as patrons are more likely to be intoxicated, and any confrontations potentially started inside may be carried outside the club.
Mr. Bates testified that the area into which the patrons were required to exit at the end of the evening was a more isolated area than the main entrance. The patrons exited into a small alleyway, away from the front door. Not having a security presence in this location at the time of departure of the patrons increased the risk of assault.
Mr. Bates opined that the security provided by the defendants was inadequate given the risk of crime at the property, that the defendants should have provided a security presence outside the club to ensure the safety of the patrons as they exited the club, and that the off-duty officers failed to monitor the outside activity around closing time. Mr. Bates testified that, given the facts of the case, had the officers been outside, they would have been a visible deterrent and would have been able to instruct any loiterers in the alley to move along. As a club security officer was already stationed inside the exit area to monitor for patrons exiting with bottles or glasses, the off-duty police officers should have been stationed outside for the protection of the patrons departing the club.
Mr. Bates testified that the common practice of nightclubs at the time of this incident was to have a security presence outside the establishment to ensure the safe arrival and departure of patrons. The defendants acknowledged that other major nightclubs in the area utilized off-duty police officers and security personnel outside until the patrons had departed.
Name of Case: Jane Doe v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)
Type of Action: Negligent Security/Assault/Abduction/Car Jacking/Rape/Robbery
Type of Injuries: Rape. Ruptured eardrum, C-spine and L-spine strain, psychological, and emotional distress
Court & Case: Superior Court, Fulton County, Georgia, CA No: 2003-CV-67628
Verdict/Settlement Amount: February 2007 Jury verdict for the plaintiff for $1.7 million.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Michele L. Stumpe, Esq., Stumpe & Associates, PC, (770) 988-9972; Louis Levenson
Security Expert for Plaintiff: Norman D. Bates, Liability Consultants, Inc.
OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION: In June of 2002, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, a grandmother, was assaulted, forced into the trunk of her vehicle, and abducted from the parking deck of the MARTA Lindbergh station in the Buckhead area of Atlanta, Georgia. The plaintiff was subsequently driven to another location where she was raped and robbed. The assailant was convicted of rape and kidnapping and is serving a sentence of life without parole plus sixty years.
The plaintiff put forth claims of negligence, including failure to keep premises safe and failure to provide adequate security.
Mr. Bates testified that the security at the Lindbergh MARTA station in Atlanta, Georgia, in the late evening of June 24, 2002, and the early morning hours of June 25, 2002, was inadequate. The frequency of crimes against persons at the Lindbergh station, in the immediate vicinity, and other MARTA stations was such that it should have put the defendant on notice that a crime such as the assault, kidnaping, and rape that occurred against the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable.
Mr. Bates further testified that MARTA’s risk assessment process was inherently flawed. MARTA had undertaken to collect and compile data of crimes occurring within the MARTA system in order to enable it to effectively allocate resources where most needed. However, MARTA’s reliance upon this system in determining how to allocate its resources to protect against foreseeable risks of crime was unreasonable because MARTA’s crime reporting system was inherently flawed because it was incomplete and unreliable. The review of MARTA’s own documents, along with the reports of the Atlanta Police Department, revealed many discrepancies where the records relied upon by MARTA police to allocate resources did not include significant crimes on MARTA’s property. Several of the incidents reported to have occurred at the Lingbergh property were improperly categorized and understated the seriousness of the prior crimes. Additionally, the Atlanta Police Department’s Report contained crimes that occurred on MARTA property which were not included in MARTA Police Department Incident Statistics.
Although management was aware of the value and importance of a constant police presence, at the time of the incident there was no evidence to indicate that a MARTA police officer was on duty when the plaintiff arrived at the garage. The post at the entrance to the Garson parking garage was unmanned. The only officer assigned to patrol the garage between 11:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. was a mobile patrol that was also responsible for patrolling several other stations and providing backup. There was no evidence produced to indicate that the garage deck was patrolled by MARTA police personnel at or around the time of plaintiff’s abduction.
Name of Case: Malbasa v. Desert Palace, Inc. d/b/a Caesars Palace
Type of Action: Premises Liability/Negligent Supervision/Negligent Training
Type of Injuries: Abduction/Sexual Assault/Emotional Distress/PTSD
Court & Case: District Court Clark County, Nevada, CA No. A 412693
Verdict/Settlement Amount: Defense Verdict.
Attorney for Defendant: Elizabeth Brennan, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, (702) 784-5225
Security Expert for Defendant: Norman D. Bates, Liability Consultants, Inc.
OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION: Plaintiff, Lisa Malbasa, an employee of Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada, alleged two incidents of abduction and sexual assault from the employee parking garage on April 20, 1998, and May 30, 1998, by her estranged husband, Doug Kearns, also employed by Caesars Palace.
Mr. Bates testified that the defendant’s management’s response to Lisa Malbasa’s allegation of abduction from Caesars Palace employee parking garage on April 20, 1998, was reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances. Caesars Palace management immediately suspended Doug Kearns in accordance with corporate policies and procedures and recommended that Mr. Kearns continue counseling sessions. Mr. Kearns’ suspension continued during Caesars Palace’s own investigation. It would have been unreasonable and unfair to terminate Mr. Kearns’ employment prior to a complete and thorough investigation by Caesars Palace management and the results of the criminal proceedings, based on an unsubstantiated accusation. Furthermore, Ms. Malbasa’s complete lack of cooperation impeded Caesars Palace’s investigation. Despite repeated requests, the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant with a statement or officially lodge a complaint with management. Additionally, the Temporary Protective Order obtained by the plaintiff against Mr. Kearns on April 28, 1998, did not prohibit Mr. Kearns from returning to work at Caesars Palace, only that he refrain from coming within 50 feet of Lisa Malbasa while they were both on duty.
Mr. Bates further testified that Caesars Palace had available escort services by the security department; however, Ms. Malbasa failed to request a security escort to and from her vehicle or request valet parking
|
