NCJ Number
115386
Journal
Security Volume: 26 Issue: 1 Dated: (January 1989) Pages: 27-28
Date Published
1989
Length
2 pages
Annotation
Recently, two important State Supreme Court decisions have addressed whether private businesses, particularly those in high crime areas, must provide armed security officers to protect persons on their property.
Abstract
In both cases, customers were shot while shopping at businesses in Denver and Detroit. Although the facts were similar, the Colorado and Michigan Supreme Courts reached diametrically opposed conclusions. In Taco Bell vs. Lannon, the business contended that the security training program emphasized minimizing violence and, on appeal, that the shooting was unforeseeable and that there was no duty to provide armed guards. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that, given 10 prior robberies, the robbery was foreseeable but that the duty to provide armed security personnel was not a question of law and should be decided by a jury on a case-by-case basis. In Williams vs. Cunningham Drug Stores Inc., the Michigan Supreme Court held, that as a matter of law, businesses had no duty to provide armed officers because this was a police rather than a security function. It also held that the Government's inability to control crime was not a reason to transfer this responsibility or liability to private businesses. Given these conflicting decisions, the question of a legal obligation to provide armed security officers is open to interpretation. 1 illustration.