Legal Aspects and Liability Flashcards

To succeed in a negligence lawsuit against a security officer, a plaintiff must prove all of the following EXCEPT:

Answer: The officer intended to cause harm to the plaintiff

Negligence does not require intent — the four required elements are duty, breach, causation, and damages; intent is the hallmark of intentional torts.

A security company assigns an officer to a high-risk post without providing training specific to foreseeable threats at that location. When an unqualified response results in a visitor being harmed, the company may be sued for:

Answer: Negligent training

Negligent training arises when an employer fails to provide training that a reasonable employer would provide given the known and foreseeable risks of a particular assignment.

The standard of care against which a security officer's conduct is measured in a negligence lawsuit is:

Answer: What a reasonably prudent security professional would do under the same or similar circumstances

Courts apply an objective 'reasonably prudent security professional' standard, not a subjective one based on what the individual officer believed was appropriate.

A security officer working under a protective services contract observes a serious assault beginning nearby but takes no action and does not call 911, and the victim suffers severe injuries. The officer and company may be liable for:

Answer: Negligent failure to act (nonfeasance)

When a duty to act exists — such as under a security services contract — a failure to act that results in foreseeable harm can establish nonfeasance liability.

In a negligence case, 'proximate cause' requires that the plaintiff prove:

Answer: There is a direct and foreseeable causal link between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's harm

Proximate cause requires showing that the plaintiff's injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant's breach of duty, not merely that the breach occurred before the harm.

Under Texas's modified comparative fault rule, if a court finds the plaintiff 35% at fault and awards $100,000 in total damages, the plaintiff will recover:

Answer: $65,000 - reduced proportionally by their share of fault

Texas follows a modified comparative fault rule reducing the plaintiff's recovery by their percentage of fault, provided their fault does not exceed 50%.

A security officer uses excessive force while detaining a shoplifting suspect, resulting in serious injury. The security company faces:

Answer: Both vicarious liability for the officer's acts and potential negligent supervision claims

The employer faces vicarious liability under respondeat superior for the officer's in-scope conduct and may separately face negligent supervision claims for failing to oversee the officer.