Untrained security guard knocks man to the ground, causing injury. $2.3M. Los Angeles County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Defendant All Action Security Consulting Group, Inc. employed a 20-year-old security guard with no training and no guard card to work a post at the Griffin (luxury apartment residence) in downtown Los Angeles.  On May 28, 2020, during his first week on the job, he intervened into a dispute on public property which was not a part of his post. His actions included body-slamming plaintiff (68 years old at the time) to the ground.

  The plaintiff had been chasing three unidentified teenagers who had entered his jewelry store in downtown Los Angeles. The three teenagers asked to see a pair of $300 diamond earrings. When plaintiff was distracted with other customers, one of the teenagers stole his merchandise, and the three teens left the store and ran down a nearby alley. Plaintiff chased after the three teenagers and was able to catch up to one young female. He can be seen on security camera footage grabbing the young girl's purse to retrieve his stolen property, as is his legal right under the shopkeeper's privilege/merchant act. The security guard saw the plaintiff take the young girl's purse and thought plaintiff was attempting to rob her despite the fact that the plaintiff repeatedly told the security guard that he was the victim of theft, that he had been stolen from, and that he wanted him to call the police.

  The security guard was assigned to a post at the Griffin and his sole job was to ensure that no one entered the parking lot for the apartment residence. The security guard ignored the plaintiff's request to call the police, and after a few minutes of physical contact/altercation and preventing the plaintiff from traveling freely in a public alleyway, the security guard body-slammed the plaintiff, causing severe injuries.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That the plaintiff had a legal right to chase, detain, and investigate the crime that had just been perpetrated against him pursuant to Penal Code 490.5.

  That All Action Security was directly liable for plaintiff's harms because All Action Security knew that they sent an unlicensed security guard to work a post, which is a crime and negligence per se. That All Action Security was vicariously liable for its security guard's actions, which fell below the standard of care because security guards are only supposed to observe and report and/or call the police – none of which was done in this matter.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Pre-trial, the defense claimed that the security guard was not acting in the course and scope of his employment, and therefore, All Action Security was not liable.

  The insurance carrier did not pick up the defense of the individual security guard. On the first day of trial and after plaintiff's counsel had already given mini-opening, the defense admitted liability for the first time.

  Defendant security company claimed that plaintiff was also comparatively at fault for his injuries for making the decision to chase after the teenagers. That the teenage criminals were liable under a third-party liability theory for stealing from plaintiff, which set in motion the chain of events that ultimately led to his injuries.