A suspected shoplifter has settled his civil case against Fry's Electronics for security misconduct while the jury was deliberating the case in San Diego. According to NBC news, Kevin Hoopfer stole a $35.00 laser pointer from a Fry's store in Murphy Canyon in September of 2010. Attorneys for Hoopfer claimed their client, without provocation, was tackled and thrown head-first onto concrete, resulting in a traumatic brain injury. The NBC story indicates the jury had already reached a decision

In the criminal case arising from the tragic beating of Bryan Stow at Dodger Stadium, testimony of Stow's friend revealed a great deal had transpired between Stow and his eventual assailants before the nearly fatal attack.  According to KTLA news, Stow's friend, Corey Maciel, testified at the preliminary hearing for the two suspects that Stow and his friends had endured hours of heckling and thrown food inside the stadium.  Even after this occurred, Stow's group was further taunted in the parking and loud words were exchanged before the final, vicious attack.  The two suspects, Marvin Norwood and Louie Sanchez, are now facing a number of serious felony charges.

See the KTLA news story and video HERE.

As a general principle, there is no duty for anyone to act to protect others from the misconduct or criminal acts of third parties.  However, such a duty may be present if there exists a “special relationship” between the parties.  Courts have found such a special relationship in cases involving the relationship between business proprietors such as shopping centers, restaurants, and bars, and their tenants, patrons, or invitees.  Where the special relationship duty exists the business owner must take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures.  In the Stow case, the Dodger security staff had a duty to protect patrons from foreseeable misconduct and criminal acts.  Since the Dodger security staff knew or reasonably should have known what was happening, their duty likely included an obligation to take reasonable, relatively simple, and minimally burdensome steps to attempt to avert that danger.  If Stow and his friends had been escorted to their vehicle by security or those causing a disturbance had been arrested for disturbing the peace, would the assault on Stow have occurred?  It seems likely it would not have happened.

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner’s property should be an important concern for all Californians.   When a business owner's patron is attacked on their property they should be held accountable if they failed to provide a reasonably safe environment, especially when they can prevent or effectively intervene in a criminal assault.   An Orange County personal injury lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 21 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a violent crime that occurred at a place of business?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Over the weekend, Disneyland's California Adventure theme park was the site of a violent incident involving an apparently intoxicated patron and a member of Disney security.  The incident, captured on tape and available on You Tube, shows an apparently intoxicated guest (identified by KTLA news as 53-year-old Glenn Horlacher) swinging at a Disney security host and then refusing commands to get on the ground.  After being wrestled to the ground and pepper sprayed a number of times, Horlacher still refuses to comply and is eventually taken to the ground by security and other patrons at the park.  According to the news report, at least one Disney employee was transported to the hospital and treated for minor injuries.  Horlacher was reportedly cited and released.

See the KTLA news story and photograph HERE. 

The videotape on You Tube shows only part of the incident, but there is no doubt Horlacher should have been arrested for assault and battery when he took his first swing at the Disney security host.  After charging the Disney employee a second time and then swinging wildly while on the ground, additional crimes of assault and battery were committed.  All of this misconduct justified an arrest that should have been effectuated by Disney security.  What is perhaps more shocking than Horlacher's actions is the miserable job Disney security did handling the situation.  While some might argue the security staff was patient and did not overreact, their inaction and failure to effectively control Horlacher prolonged the incident, heightened the risk of injury to guests and park employees and ultimately led to the negative attention now being paid to the incident.  The security staff at Disney should have immediately arrested Horlacher for assault and battery and placed him in handcuffs, before quickly removing him from the public's view.  It was nothing short of negligent to handle the situation in the manner shown in the video, and fortuitous that other patrons were not injured.  At one point in the video, near the end, Horlacher is on the ground being restrained by patrons at the park and not one Disney employee.  In this context, with security and other employees already on the scene, that should never have happened.

Compensation for the victims of security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When security employees are negligent or commit intentional acts of misconduct, their employer should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County security misconduct attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of  negligent or intentional misconduct by private security?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.  

 

KTLA news is reporting today that the Dodgers are looking for ways to improve fan safety in the wake of the Brian Stow beating on opening day.  For example, half-price beer will no longer be sold during baseball games at Dodgers Stadium, presumably in an effort to reduce the number of intoxicated and unruly fans at the park.  Dodgers owner Frank McCourt also agreed to create a computer mapping and crime tracking system for the stadium similar to the one the LAPD uses to monitor crime patterns and hotspots throughout Los Angeles.  LAPD Chief Charlie Beck promised to dramatically increase police presence at games as well.

See the full KTLA story HERE.

Dodger Stadium has long had a reputation for having inadequate and/or heavy-handed security.  A number of videotapes on You Tube depict Dodger Security Department employees using what appears to be excessive or unnecessary force.  Currently, Mr. Ralph's office is representing a Dodger Stadium patron who was thrown violently to the ground and handcuffed after he allegedly "pushed" a member of the security staff.  The patron denies making any physical contact with the security employee, and, even though the Los Angeles Police Department was called to the scene, the patron was not taken into police custody nor was he ever charged with any crime.  Interestingly, the paperwork completed by the security staff banishing the patron from the park indicates he was told to leave the park for using profanity, not assaulting a security employee.  The civil lawsuit against Dodger Stadium is currently set for trial in April of 2012.

Compensation for the victims of security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When an innocent patron is assaulted and/or arrested by private security, the business owner should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County security misconduct attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of an unlawful arrest by security?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

 

In California, a retailer may hire employees to detect, apprehend and arrest suspected shoplifters.  Traditionally, retailers hire "officers" to wear uniforms in order to deter crime and assist in the apprehension and arrest of suspected thieves.  Security "agents" (sometimes referred to as "asset protection agents" or "loss prevention agents") are generally employed to work undercover on the sales floor to detect and apprehend suspected shoplifters.  A statute enacted many years ago (California Penal Code § 490.5) permits the retailer and their agents to stop and detain suspected shoplifters whenever there is probable cause to believe the person stopped has attempted to take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the store's premises.  This same statute protects the retailer and their agents from civil liability so long as they have acted with probable cause, and the detention was in all other respects reasonable.  This code section is commonly referred to as the "merchant's privilege."

However, it is not terribly uncommon for an overly zealous shoplift agent to apprehend someone without adequate cause or use more than that force necessary to effect the detention.  The law only permits the agent/security officer to use a reasonable amount of non-deadly force to apprehend and detain suspected law breakers.  Once the amount of force crosses this line or the detention is longer than is reasonably necessary, the store and its employees may be held liable for damages.

The damages that can be recovered are often determined by the actions of the store employees.  For example, where physical restraints are used (such as handcuffs) or there is a physical altercation of some sort, the amount of damages awarded is likely increased.  Additionally, if the retailer elects to criminally prosecute the suspected shoplifter (who is in reality innocent), the merchant's privilege does not apply beyond the detention, and damages may be awarded for false arrest and/or malicious prosecution.

Beyond the damages already mentioned, the victim of security misconduct may be able to pursue a claim for a violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 and/or §43, which reads in part as follows:

....every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations.

There are a host of civil claims that may be brought to vindicate the rights of those falsely detained or arrested by store security agents and officers.  The laws in California operate to protect the store owners to an extent, but also to ensure the innocent are fairly compensated when their rights have been trampled.

Compensation for the victims of security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a security officer or agent acts outside the bounds of the law, they and their employer should be held accountable.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Does the California law protecting retailers and their agents, at least in a limited fashion,  seem fair?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.