Published on:

Injured Security Guard Seeks to Make Worker’s Compensation Claim

A telecoms company owns the premises leased by an out of possession landlord. The telecoms company contracted a security agency for their security services including the presence of a security guard in the premises. The premises had been a victim of gun crime robbery and homicide. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the assigned security guard was shot in his stomach, inside the premises, by an unknown attacker during a robbery and died of his wounds later that evening. He was employed by the telecom’s parent company. The security guard’s estate sued the landlord and the telecoms company for negligent security and wrongful death, and the security guard’s father sued for loss of his son’s services.

The assailant was forcing a customer and the security guard to the rear of the store with the gun in the back of the customer, when the gun went off grazing the customer and hitting the security guard. He died shortly after arriving at the Hospital.

According to the depositions of the store manager, everyday during closing time, a cashier at the store followed various procedures, which included bringing into the store a coin-operated kiddie rides about 30 minutes prior to closing, and then lowering various gates about 15 minutes prior to closing.

The store manager testified that there was a central alarm system in her office, at the rear of the store. She said that the security agency had a guard stationed by the door, checking bags, overseeing the floor and making sure that everything goes smoothly. The guard usually was an unarmed and uniformed man. The security guard’s duties included assisting with closing procedures, making sure that customers left the store and bringing down and locking gates in the front of the store. At the time of the incident, the store manager was behind a cash register when she saw fighting in the front of the store. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said she stated that she believes there were three males wearing yellow rain jackets, masks on the faces and duct tape on them, and she saw her security guards were fighting with the males. She described the three perpetrators as wearing black ski masks, having hoods covering their heads, and their mouths covered with duct tape. She subsequently ran to her manager’s office in the rear of the store, locked the door behind her, rang the alarm button and called the police. The security guard reported to the telecom supervisor who controlled and directed his work duties. He worked at the telecom company to further the needs of its mother company who had the power to reassign him and terminate him. The telecom company had no supervisors present at the premises. In fact, the telecom company, the corporate shell, had no employees. The mother company who owned the telecom company created it to limit its liability at the premises. Thus, the telecom company cannot be the special employer of the security guard or any of its company’s employees at the telecom store.

There are no triable issues of fact as to whether the security guard was the telecom company’s special employee. The security guard, as a matter of law, was not a special employee of the telecom company. He was only a general employee of the mother company. Therefore, the accused companies are not precluded by the Workers’ Compensation Law from suing the telecom company.

The telecom company’s attempts to provide security at the premises has issues capable of trial of fact as to whether the telecom company, the lessee in possession, had a duty to provide security because of its knowledge of prior criminal activity at the premises. Further, a Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said in providing security personnel for the premises, there are issues capable of trial of fact as to whether the telecom company provided premises security with due care.

The landlord established its legitimate entitlement to summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint and all cross-claims against it by demonstrating that it relinquished control of the leased premises to the telecom company and that no statutory violations existed. In opposition, the telecom company and the landlord failed to demonstrate the existence of issues of material fact as the out of possession landlord bearing any responsibility for premises’ security.

Employers expect their employees to do everything for the sake of the company. In return, employees expect their employers to take care of them and their families in times of work-related troubles. If you are become a victim of crime, whether it involves gun possession, drug possession or assault, feel free to contact the Nassau County Criminal Lawyers. When you are wrongfully detained, call the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates to speak with a Nassau County Arrest Attorney.

Contact Information