[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Heracles_rocks wrote:
Here are some bullet points that olympic security services allegedly provides:
“Security personnel accurately matched to each client’s needs” They were present, so i guess this was fulfilled
“Highly trained staff responds rapidly in emergencies” They were negligent here. They did not respond.
“On-going communication between client and security team” They did this by the radio.
“Management team always available, providing leadership and support” I guess this was fulfilled through the press release.
Here is a big bold statement of this company.
“It’s more than just a shiny badge and a uniform - it’s a total package combining years of experience, extensive training and professional, responsive management.” I did not see any experience showing on the footage, nor did i see any training or professional behavior out of a security personnel.
http://www.olympiksecurity.com/index.htm
http://www.komonews.com/news/content/84063732.html This story is one glorified blow smoke up your ass media responce if i ever saw it. This paragraph is particularly intriguing.
“Olympic Security has reviewed this incident with King County Metro officials and agree with them that a review of policies and procedures is necessary in order to develop the best possible responses to incidents like the assault captured in the video.”
This sort of thing is what happens after cases of negligence. This whole thing stinks, something wasn’t done, and if it get pursued they should be found liable.
Outlaw, due to particular phrasing on what this would be judged on and technicalities, you are probably right that the company would not be found liable, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t.
[/quote]
Dude, seriously, a little bit of knowledge, and a little bit of information, is dangerous and you’re guilty of having both, no offense. You’re no dummy, but you’re engaging in the dangerous sport of amateur lawyering. What you do not have at your disposal above, is the CONTRACT of the services they ACTUALLY CONTRACTED to provide and, an understanding of legal duty.[/quote]
This is true. I tried responding to this post through an edit on my previous post, but it disappeared. There’s a distinction between contract issues and tort issues. A breach of contract in itself does not result in liability unless there’s an actual tort.
The alleged breach of contract he is contending is that they failed to respond to emergency situations…yet, they called 911, and that is what they were probably required to do. Furthermore, he is citing from a website and not the actual contract.
I also forgot to mention as you did that the city (or some other premise owner) may be liable for not contracting for better security b/c of similar events occuring in the past…in essence, undertaking a duty to provide security and failing to provide adequate security. BUT, the city or premise owner most likely has an indemnity agreement (in the contract) with the security company to protect it from any liability.
Also, I know I said a bear hug would’ve been adequate, but I’ve never had to restrain a woman in North Philly, so ignore that.
EDIT: to clarify, indemnity would just mean that the security company would have to pay the damages if any lawsuit is won against the owner
Also…if it’s the city that owns it, it’s possible they may have immunity. If the decision to employ unarmed security guards was a planning decision b/c of budget constraints to avoid paying for a more expensive contract, etc., they would probably have immunity.
