|
This may seem like a simplistic rhetorical question. Yet when one does careful analyses, we find that that these issues are often at the root cause of many lawsuits.
SMSI recently provided litigation support in defense of a shopping center that was being sued by a tenant for inadequate security. In this case, a jewelry store was robbed. No one was injured, yet the tenant brought suit in an attempt to recover losses. This suit was brought despite the fact the tenant had cancelled their protection package that had been provided by a nationally known alarm company.
A more common occurrence is lawsuits alleging intentional torts such as false arrest, excessive force, and false imprisonment. These cases arise from the participation of mall security personnel engaging in shoplifting apprehensions on behalf of retailer tenants.
Mall security must stop at the store's threshold. The confusion often arises when tenants, who pay indirectly as a pass-through for mall security, feel entitled to use the security force for internal security problems. There are some special circumstances where it may be reasonable for mall security personnel to engage in security services for individual tenants, but these are the exception to the rule.
The best way to avert these prob-lems is to make sure there is clear lease language that explicitly deals with these issues. More importantly, the security organization must clearly understand the lines of demarcation.
Tenants must understand that a secure shopping center accrues economic benefit to them. If customers perceive the mall is safe and free of crime, they are more likely to patronize their businesses. |
