Security Services • The El Dorado Advantage • Request More Information • ONGUARD • Online Resources • EMail • El Dorado Home

Rowdy Patron Detained

Facts: Amir Shokrian was a patron at a casino. During a blackjack game, Shokrian asked the dealer to wait for him to decide his play, but the dealer ignored Shokrian and drew a card for herself, beating him. Shokrian lost his money and vehemently protested the incident. He was ordered to leave the premises, but he refused. Two security guards handcuffed Shokrian and took him to a small room on the premises. Shokrian alleged that the security guards and other personnel mistreated him and drugged him. Shokrian became unconscious, and when he gained consciousness, he alleged that an employee placed a pen-like device in his nose. Shokrian also alleged that he was talking to his daughter on his cellular phone when the employees ripped it from his hand and ended the call. Further, Shokrian's possessions, including money, two rings, a gold watch, a pen, and keys were missing. Shokrian was taken to the emergency room for urgent care and supervision. Shokrian sued the property owner for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, negligence and conversion. The trial court granted summary judgment to the property owner, and Shokrian appealed.

Decision: A property owner may be held liable for assault, battery and false imprisonment if the property owner's employees acted unreasonably. Based on the evidence Shokrian presented, the property owner may have acted unreasonably against Shokrian. However, the property owner's version of the story differs. Thus, the state court of appeal reversed and remanded the trial court's decision in order to resolve the factual disputes between Shokrian and the property owner.

Implications: Property owners should proceed with caution when detaining patrons in order to avoid being held liable for assault and battery. Assault and battery committed by security guards employed by a business may render the business liable for the guards' actions. Property owners could place security cameras in detention areas in order to clarify factual disputes raised by patrons. (Source: Security Law Newsletter, April 2007, Strafford Publications. Shokrian v. Bellagio Hotel & Casinos, No. B 182538, California Court of Appeal, Jan. 24, 2007.)

Negligent Hiring of Guard

Facts: Mark Wilton, the owner of an apartment complex, hired David Rodriguez as the apartment manager and security guard. Prior to working at the property, Rodriguez was convicted of manslaughter. Rodriguez carried guns, used methamphetamine and threatened tenants on the property. Rodriguez shot a tenant, Michael Hawkins, outside of the property and was convicted of attempted murder. Hawkins sued the property owner under a theory of respondeat superior, contending that Wilton was liable for Rodriguez' actions. Hawkins also contended that the property owner negligently hired Rodriguez. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wilton, and Hawkins appealed.

Decision: A property owner owes a duty of reasonable care to protect its tenants from known dangers. A property owner generally does not owe a duty to protect tenants from criminal acts of third parties unless the criminal acts are foreseeable based on past similar acts. The employer of a security guard may be liable for the guard's assault if the employer negligently hired the guard and placed the guard in a position to commit foreseeable harmful acts. The court of appeal ruled that if the property owner knew about Rodriguez' prior conviction for manslaughter and allowed him to carry guns, then the property owner was negligent. The court of appeal reversed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the property owner, finding that material issues existed as to whether the property owner knew about Rodriguez' criminal propensity.

Implications: An employer of security guards may be held liable for the guards' acts if the employer negligently placed a violent guard in a position to commit criminal acts. (Hawkins v. Wilton, No. C049462, Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2006. Source: Security Law Newsletter, December 2006.)

Workplace Violence

About 15 people die in the workplace every week from violent acts, but the problem is lessening due to better screening of applicants and employees, supervision and staff management. Homicides have decreased 9% over the past year and 14.3% during the period 2001 to 2005. Increased and improved security services can take credit for this downward trend. From 1992 to 1998, homicides were the second most frequent work-related fatal event, but now homicides are the fourth lowest. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the greatest places for workplace homicides are in order gasoline stations, food and beverage stores, finance and inurance, healthcare and social assistance, leisure and hospitality, and government. (Source: Excerpted from Security Letter, September 1, 2007.)

Back to Main Security News

800.221.3386 • Fax 800.700.0126
specialist@eldoradoinsurance.com

Texas: 713.521.9251 • Fax 713.521.0125 • 2515 North Blvd. • Houston, Texas 77098

California: 661.377.0260 • Fax 661.377.0266 • 4100 Easton Drive, Ste. 2 • Bakersfield, CA 93309
Doing business in California under License #OE59720, dba El Dorado Security Services Insurance Agency.

Copyright © 1998-2006 El Dorado Insurance Agency, Inc.