Who Is Liable Article

Name
Course
Tutor
Date
Who’s Liable Article
In public facilities such as malls and stadiums, the concept of security is a nightmare since it is practically impossible to ensure that all individuals are secure. Most public amenities have entered into contracts with security firms to ensure they can secure their facilities. The case under consideration presents a situation where Mr. Smith was assaulted while attending a game (Solensky 1). The stadium had entered into a contract with a security firm, and they were expected to protect the facility as well as protect the individuals within the premises. The company can be termed as being legally liable on the basis of different grounds. Mr. Smith can use the intentional tort theory which states that the firm would be responsible since the assault occurred and was within the scope of the security guards. The guards were expected to protect individuals within the stadium but allowed the assault on Mr. Smith (Solensky 1). Mr. Smith may also argue on the basis of negligent action since the guards did not show up to try and control the rowdy individuals. He may also base his argument on the security services agreements which are expected to have post orders that ensure third parties can be protected.
Security agencies can come up with different measures geared towards ensuring that they are absolved of legal liability in the event of an accident. This can be done by focusing on the services agreement which spells out the scope of service.

This will ensure that the firms only cover areas stipulated in the agreement. The security agencies also need to come up with strict compliance standards regarding aspects such as patrol and monitoring. This would ensure they are not accused of negligence in performing their duties.
Works Cited
Solensky Jr., Edward. “Who’s Liable Now?.” Security Management (2007): 80-88. Print.