A dispute between a Home Deport customer and a food vendor ended in a security guard fatally shooting the customer instead of trying to de-escalate the situation, according to a Complaint filed by the parents of the deceased customer. The incident took place in a Los Angeles, California Home Depot located in a high crime area. The suit was filed in California state court against Home Depot, the store’s manager, two private security companies, and the security guard that fired the shot. The suit, titled Medina v. City Guard, Inc., alleges negligent hiring, negligent security and wrongful death against Home Depot, et. al., among other things.
In the incident in question, an altercation between a customer and a food vendor ended with an angry mob trying to prevent the customer from leaving the Home Depot store. According to the Complaint, instead of trying to disperse the mob, allowing the customer to leave peacefully or noting the customer’s license plate number so that it could be provided to the police, Home Depot’s security guards joined the mob’s efforts to block plaintiff’s path and detain him. Ultimately, the plaintiff made it into his vehicle peacefully and was in the process of leaving the Home Depot parking lot when one of the security guards shockingly drew his gun and shot the customer in the head without provocation. In the words of the Complaint, the hiring of the security guard directly led to “a tragic death that never should have happened and, with reasonable care, would have been prevented.”
A commercial business owner like Home Depot cannot generally be held responsible or vicariously responsible for the criminal and/or intentional torts of an employee. However, the law of negligent security holds that a business owner/employer like Home Depot can be held responsible for dangerous conditions it knew or should have known about had it exercised the appropriate level of care and caution. For instance, if a business is in a high crime area and/or the store has a history of crime including violent assaults, it can be argued they are on notice of the same and security measures should be initiated to protect its employees/customers, e.g., roaming armed security guards in-and-out of the store, metal detectors, cameras, security gates, extra lighting, etc. Likewise, a business/employer can be responsible for the criminal conduct and/or intentional torts of an employee if they failed to conduct the appropriate due diligence prior to hiring the employee such as criminal/civil background checks, license checks, reference checks, etc.
Employers like Home Depot are under an obligation to screen employees to ascertain that they are qualified for the job and will not cause harm to other employees or customers. This obligation is especially important with positions that involve access to company funds, access to alcohol, operation of a motor vehicle, interaction with customers or children, or use of firearms or other weapons. For instance, it would be unreasonable to hire an accountant or bookkeeper to handle money or finances if he or she had a history of embezzlement or fraud or other crime of dishonest. Likewise, it would not be reasonable to hire a security guard that has a history including assault, battery, aggravated battery, armed robbery, gun violence or other inappropriate and criminal activity. The failure of a company or employer to do the appropriate background check on employees prior to hiring them can give rise to a lawsuit for negligent hiring and/or negligent security by a customer or employee that is subsequently injured.
Despite the above, there has been a trend to urge employers to give applicants with a sketchy background a second chance to fill a talent gap. The risk in this approach is that past undesirable behavior may resurface. While it is certainly admirable to extend a second chance to a person who has a blemished record, a prudent employer should require an applicant with a problematic record to undergo appropriate counseling such as anger management, or better yet, hire the person but do not place the person in a position where the employee may have the opportunity to cause physical harm to others.
In the case of the Home Depot security guard, a background check would have revealed several red flags including, per the Complaint on information and belief: having his security guard license previously revoked following criminal convictions, allegations of domestic violence, postings on social media suggesting he used mind-altering substances—all warnings to Home Depot not to put this person on their security guard team or to allow him to carry a deadly weapon. Other security guards hired by the security guard companies to work on Home Depot’s premises were similarly unfit to serve in that capacity and any modicum of due diligence would have revealed this to Home Depot had it been performed.
Similarly, a background check of the security guard companies who employed the security guard who killed the customer may have yielded necessary information in determining if they were appropriate for the job with Home Depot. Even a search of publicly available customer reviews would have provided information to consider. One such review identified in the Complaint alleges, “They have no insurance or licenses to run a security company. They do not pay their workers on time which results in low worker morale and no call no shows and eventually quitting the job and leaving your business high and dry with no security guard. They have many lawsuits against them from workers filing complaints with the labor board.” Often times, cutting corners on staffing permits companies to be more competitive with pricing to get larger jobs, but it is done to the detriment of the public.
These negative reviews would have been observable to Home Depot had they researched the security companies they were looking to retain and arguably puts them on notice the companies may not be the safest option. Failing to perform a proper background check on their outside security company and/or security officers prior to retaining for a high risk location may be the basis for negligent hiring and negligent security claims as a reasonably prudent company would do this before allowing them to engage with customers/employees.
As the Complaint pointed out, a private security guard’s job is to “deter, detect and report” dangerous activity and to de-escalate potentially violent conflicts. They have no authority to detain or apprehend individuals and certainly not to take violent action against an unarmed person presenting no safety risk to the officer or others.
In sum, this unfortunate incident involving the shooting death of an unarmed customer was entirely avoidable by Home Depot. If Home Depot had vetted its vendors in any meaningful way and knew what there was to know about the security contractors, this wrongful death would not have happened. It is apparent Home Depot either failed to perform any due diligence on its security contractors and/or security personnel or failed to identify and appreciate potential red flags in their backgrounds before allowing them to engage with customers. Clearly, the officers were not trained as well before they were given a gun and permitted to engage with customers. Regardless, Home Depot, et. al. face claims of negligent hiring, retention, training, as well as negligent security for their failures as well as wrongful death. This case is still pending and we will follow and report subsequent developments.
In addition to negligent security actions against Home Depot, there are many other kinds of accidents that happen at Home Depot throughout Florida that our office has helped others recovery physically/financially. Accidents at Home Depot in Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Wellington, Winter Park, Orlando happen when the premises is unsafe resulting in items toppling or falling on customers (e.g., tile, merchandise, boxes, toilets, equipment, fence posts, doors, etc),. Accidents also happen when defective products sold or rented to customers by Home Depot fail such as ladders, lawnmowers, power tools. If you or a loved one have been the victim of a serious injury as the result of inadequate security at Home Depot, or any other accident with injury, do not wait to get immediate legal assistance from a personal injury lawyer near you like David B. Datny, Esq. that has experience dealing with Home Depot. Click the chat box below to talk consult our office or call us any time at 561-221-7474 for a no charge phone consultation.