Plaintiff was a county maintenance employee. He alleged that he was viciously attacked by members of an event that had rented the venue where he worked and that he sustained serious and significant injuries as a result. His wife claimed loss of consortium. LBL’s client was the security company hired to provide protective services at the event.

Plaintiff claimed the guards had abandoned their posts, that the security was inadequate and not properly trained. Based thereon, it was claimed that the security company had thereby breached a duty to provide protective services from which Plaintiff would have benefitted. Plaintiff alleged theories of negligence, failure to properly supervise and train, and premises liability.

LBL Partners Kurt Bridgman and Guy Stilson prepared a motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication of each of the causes of action alleged against the security provider. Bridgman and Stilson argued that the security company had no duty to protect Plaintiff because there was no “special relationship” between Plaintiff and the security company and Plaintiff was not an intended third party beneficiary of the contract. Bridgman and Stilson also argued that even if the security company breached a duty to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s theory of causation was speculative because there was no evidence showing the guards would have been aware of the assault, the presence of security guards would have been sufficient to deter the attackers, or that an attempted intervention by the security guards would have prevented the Plaintiff’s injuries.

The Superior Court agreed and granted summary judgment on the dual bases of lack of duty and lack of admissible evidence of causation. The court also granted summary adjudication of each of the causes of action asserted against LBL’s client.

Share this:

© 2018 LOW, BALL & LYNCH | DISCLAIMER | PRIVACY

CONNECT WITH US: