Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:40:28 -0500
From: "M. Cortes" <manico@...>
Subject: Estate of Clerk Sues Convenience Store Chain over Lack of Security
> Updated: January 12th, 2005 11:33:45 AM
> Estate of Clerk Sues Convenience Store Chain over Lack of Security
> Suit admonishes management for lack of cameras, no second staff member during late-night robbery, murder

This is interesting, for any number of reasons, yet it is a very good example of why mitigation and minimization of risk in a high-risk area is critical to a business operation.  First of all, in this scenario there appears to be just information from a print media story, but having said that, this scenario has reared it's head in other places, to other businesses.  Unfortunately, it is also likely to happen once again.  Yep, a true story....

Looking at a potential scenario as briefly described in the initial message, there are certainly a number of factors to be looked at be it in a deposition, or court presentation.  Negligence is certainly nothing new, and whether this business operation fell below the standard set by the single word "foreseeable,"  will at some point be determined in a court room.  Was this event, or similar events "foreseeable?"  Determination of that goes into a variety of areas, using a variety of "risk factors." 

At the same time, there is certainly an issue pointed out related to, "lack of cameras."  Yes, that is another can of worms that will be sorted out in this case, as it has in many others.  The lessons learned in the use or cameras (real and dummy) have been discussed since at least 1968.  In 1968, the United States passed the Bank Protective Act...related to Robbery issues, Burglary etc.  Yes, cameras were a part of this legislative effort, in that it was perceived that a use of cameras would "deter robbery."  In reality, robberies in this regulated group of industries has not only increased annually in many states since 1968, but in some years the competition for which states top the "bank robbery list," has been extreme.   

Cameras have limitations, and whether they are used, and in what capacity must be a part of a comprehensive security survey, prior to a business operation.  Unfortunately, cameras are not now, and never have been, a guarantee against crime.  If conditions exist which would be helped by the use of camera systems, employment of them might, indeed, be one measure of mitigating certain (and specified) risk levels.  In retail, dummy cameras placed to "reduce robbery," have impacted the bottom line of businesses in courtrooms, and certainly were identified as tests of the word "foreseeable event."  If it was foreseeable that X will occur, then why wasn't Y employed instead of something that only appeared to look like Y?  Another issue has to do with camera placement, and maintenance of said camera (or system).   If Y has been employed to deal with X, yet it has been allowed to deteriorate to non-functional status, has level of negligence been reached?

I have interviewed a number of security managers regarding robbery related issues.  In some cases, it was as plainly spoken as could be......."robberies are a cost of doing business."   Although that would never be spoken to employee groups, it is more representative of an "attitude."  Unfortunate, but a true story.

So, as unfortunate as this scenario is (as described by the initial email), there are three things that will keep security related court cases happening.   Attitudes, foreseeability tests, and resultant negligence.  The first two of those can be modified, and should be.  If they are, the third will be less and less an occurrence in court.

John

---

John D. Moore, CPP, CEO
ceo@...
http://www.armedrobbery.com
-------------------------------
Armed Robbery Training Associates, LLC
Member, Better Business Bureau
P.O. Box 18715
Spokane WA. 99228-0715
Office: (509)-327-5627
Toll Free (US): 1-877-7-HOLDUP
-------------------------------