Negligent security refers to the failure of a private security company or organization to use reasonable care to protect individuals from foreseeable harm. This can include a lack of proper training, screening, or supervision of security officers that results in harm to others. Security companies can be found liable for negligence if injuries are caused by inadequate security practices, such as an improperly trained officer conducting an unlawful search or arrest. While security companies argue that extensive training is too costly, failure to provide proper training can result in costly civil lawsuits if negligence is found. Adequate screening of employees during the hiring process is also important to avoid negligent hiring claims.

1. Based on your research, what is negligent security?
300 Word Discussion
Negligence
Negligence is a common liability associated with tort cases
against security practitioners. Whether it is a failure to perform
a duty, lack of training or improper level of background
screening, negligence liability is one of the biggest problems
facing private security.
Some of the cases and material available through online
research date back over twenty years but their relevance in
today’s scenarios is very much as real now as it was then.
Negligence can also lead to other torts representing serious
potential financial losses. An improperly trained security officer
runs a high risk of executing a false arrest or unwarranted
search of an individual (Moore, 1988).
The class text and related Internet research can point towards a
number of cases in which the plaintiffs have prevailed resulting
in excessive fines and awards due to bad security practice.
The challenge that typically faces most security companies is
that of the cost associated with the training of personnel. Many
security contracts have very close profit margins right near
actual cost many times. These tight margins prohibit training
from a financial perspective.
However, the cost of not providing training can permanently
ruin and destroy a business. Even if security companies provide
state-mandated training, if required at all, many times the
training is minimal and inadequate averaging 8 to 16 hours total
(Button, 2007).
Meeting a state’s requirements may satisfy requirements for
licensing but may not be enough to keep one out of civil tort for
negligence. According to Pastor (2007), if a causal connection
between a recognized harm and an insufficient level of training
and supervision a negligence case may be proven.
Adequate supervision ties in with training in the respect that
ensuring employees are properly prepared to carry out their

2. duties. Recurring and remedial training are seen as components
of effective training. Court cases revolving around negligent
hiring practices are commonplace and numerous.
A common premise of many negligent hiring cases is:
•
The employer knew or should have known that the employee
had a particular unfitness for the position so as to create a
danger of harm to third persons;
•
The particular unfitness was known or should have been known
at the time of the employee’s hiring or retention; and this
particular unfitness proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury
(Pastor, 2007)
Private Security Officers Employment Act of 2004
With the passing of the Private Security Officers Employment
Act of 2004 (PSOA), an easier means to provide a substantial
criminal records check has been provided to employers.
Through established state channels a private security company
can submit a criminal check on new and incumbent employees
utilizing the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National
Criminal Information Center records database. This is the
largest and most complete national repository of criminal
records within the United States.
Employee Screening
Other potential areas of negligence when hiring a new employee
include physical fitness and education. If a prospective security
officer is not properly screened through the staffing process and
the requirements of the contract or position to be filled are not
properly translated into application and position requirements,
the hiring entity is left exposed for potential negligent liability
claims.
Case Law
REVIEW THE CASE LAW BELOW:
RONG DONG LI, Plaintiff, vs. AKAL SECURITY, INC., et al.,

3. Defendants. CASE NO. 10cv2465-LAB (BGS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4993
January 17, 2012, Decided January 17, 2012, Filed
Li, an illegal immigrant and detainee at the El Centro Service
Processing Center ("Detention Center"), alleges that Akal
Security is liable for personal injuries he sustained when two
other detainees attacked him in a bathroom. Akal is a private
security company that provided security for the Center pursuant
to a contract with United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. (RONG DONG LI, Plaintiff, vs. AKAL
SECURITY, INC.)
Li's story is straightforward. He entered the men's restroom at
the Detention Center and saw two men fighting. He alerted
guards, who came quickly, broke up the fight, and escorted the
two men from the restroom. As he was washing his hands, after
using the restroom himself, one of the men who had been
fighting, joined by another man, entered the restroom and
attacked Li. The attack lasted for three to four minutes, leaving
Li bloody with injuries to his face and body. (RONG DONG LI,
Plaintiff, vs. AKAL SECURITY, INC.)
Li's grievance, in essence, is that Akal Security failed to protect
him from the aggressions of fellow detainees at the Detention
Center. Typically, this is a civil rights claim brought by
prisoners under the Eighth Amendment, and it requires that
prison officials demonstrate "deliberate indifference" to
"conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm." Clem v.
Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811
(1994)). Li doesn't allege, though, that his Eighth Amendment
rights were violated by Akal. He simply accuses Akal of
negligence: (1) for failing to station guards outside of the
restroom to respond to emergencies therein; (2) for its
employees' failure to respond to Li's cries for help from within
the restroom; (3) for its employees' failure to segregate or
detain the man Li had seen fighting, and who subsequently

4. attacked Li; and (4) for failing to investigate the original fight.
(RONG DONG LI, Plaintiff, vs. AKAL SECURITY, INC.)
On April 3, 2011, the Court dismissed with prejudice most of
Li's claims against Akal Security. One claim, for the negligent
infliction of emotional distress, survived. The Court found that
Li hadn't stated adequate facts to support that claim, but it
allowed him the opportunity to do so in amended complaint.
Now before the Court is Akal's motion to dismiss Li's First
Amended Complaint. In addition to alleging the negligent
infliction of emotional distress, Li also alleges basic
negligence. (RONG DONG LI, Plaintiff, vs. AKAL SECURITY,
INC.)
Additional Learning Resources
Review the following links and video pertaining to this lesson.
What is Negligent Security?
C.I.E Service Corp. v Smith
Private Security Guard Liability in California
The Value of Inadequate Security Lawsuits
Sacramento switches security firms after complaints of guards
who didn’t show up
References
Button, M. (2007). Assessing the regulation of private security
across Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 4(1), 109-128.
DOI: 10.1177/1477370807071733
Moore. R. (1988). Civil liability for negligent and inadequate
training: A private security problem. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 4(106), 106-118. doi:
10.1177/104398628800400205
Pastor, J. (2007). Security law and methods. Burlington, MA:
Butterworth-Heinmann.
Private Security Officer Employment Assurance Act of 2004,
Pub. L. No. 108-453, 118 Stat. 3596. (2004)