Berg versus Allied Security Inc

Berg v. Allied Security Inc. Chicago 1.    An overview of the case (provide a detailed case review)      In this case, Joan Berg, the plaintiff, filed the personal injury case against Allied security, the defendants.  The Cook County circuit court, in 1996 September the 4th, ruled in favor of the defendants. After thirty days Joan Berg sought authority to amend the complaint and the circuit court, on 15th October, denied her the reconsideration. The amendment Leave was also denied on 21st November.

The plaintiff filed an appeal on the 26th of November 1996 (Rathje 1). In their arguments, the defendants noted that the appeal time was bad even though the plaintiff filed it less than one week following the decision from the circuit court. According to the defendants, the plaintiff’s motion had no post-judgment qualification as a motion under the civil procedure code section 2-1203. According to the defendants, the thirty days taken before the appeal was filed, was not occasioned by the pending motion under consideration in the circuit court.

For this reason, according to the defendants, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal by Joan Berg.      The jurisdictional challenge was thwarted by the appellate court and the appeal was heard on its merits. The court opined that material facts were present in the case and that the judgment given was not proper. This meant that the appellate court dismissed the judgment of the circuit court and the circuit court case was remanded for current proceedings (Rathje 1).

The defendants sought to appeal this decision and the court granted the wish. The defendants continued with their argument that the motion filed in the appellate court by the plaintiff was untimely. The circumstances in question led the appellate court to determine that the timing of the appeal notice from the plaintiff was indeed proper under reasonable Rule 303 interpretation.

In Justice Rathje’s view, it would have been unjustifiable to deny the plaintiff right to access the appellate court.  Details of the Case     Joan Berg, on 27th March 1992, was attacked by unknown assailants in a parking lot that formed part of an office compound. The employer of Joan Berg alongside other tenants had their location in the office compound buildings. The commercial offices belonged to Podolsky.

During the time of the attack, Joan Berg was coming back to work after picking some Pizzas for her work colleagues (Gallagher 1). She was going for the 2 PM to 12 AM work shift. In the process of stepping from the car, Joan Berg received a blow on the back of her head. The blow came from a man who was standing above her holding a metal bar in his hand.

The assailant pushed Joan back into her car through the car’s front seat and continued to blow strikes on her repeatedly. Joan reacted by hooting her car and this prompted the attacker to flee (Gallagher 1).     There had not been any attack incidents in that parking lot in recent history. However, there had been around 20 cases relating to damage of cars in the parking lot. At one point a woman had been groped on the buttock in the same parking lot.

With regard to the security of the office complex Podolsky and the employer of Joan Berg had a lease that stated the following. The landlord had rights to install, maintain and operate the security system of the building with closed circuit monitoring television covering every person leaving and entering the building. The rights allowed Podolsky to install the monitoring system. Further, Podolsky hired Allied Inc. to offer the 24/7 security. The contractual agreement (service agreement for the security guard) between Allied Inc.

and Podolsky stated the following: That the contractor, Allied Inc., was to avail security personnel for the purpose of providing tasks that were agreed upon. Further, Podolsky and Allied Inc. had agreed that the security firm would avail security personnel and the hours of duty would be agreed upon mutually between Podolsky, the client, and Allied Inc., the contractor.

In case the client altered the quantity of coverage or time of security service as originally stated in their agreement, then the contractor would have the right to renegotiate the existing contract since the duties of the contracted personnel would be substantially changed (Gallagher 1).      In the contractual agreement between Podolsky and Allied Inc., the contractor was required to comply with all the regulations, rules, ordinances, and statutes.

The agreement also allowed the client to request additional services as long as the services requested are in conformity with the role played by the firm. Any personnel working remained the property of Allied Inc., the contractor. The equipping, training, directing, supervising, along with uniforms, recruitment and dismissal of security personnel was under the premise of Allied Inc. (This was an emphasized part of the contract). According to the details of the contract the defendants, Podolsky and Allied, made decisions jointly on what duties were to be performed (Gallagher 1).

Orders issued to the security guards by Allied entails the definition of their primary functions as follows: Ensure that the unauthorized people are kept from the property in order to alleviate the risks of assault, vandalism, and theft. Further, the security guards were to offer assistance in controlling access to the property by granting employees and visitors controlled access (Gallagher 1).     The security guards were also expected to ensure they alleviate risks of property damage from fire, flooding, equipment failure etc.

The responsibilities given to the security guards were to be achieved through maintenance of high visibility level, proper handling of possible situations such as unsecured doors, failure of equipment and unauthorized visitors, continuous attentiveness and adequate events reporting for activities such as fire hazards and loitering etc., request for assistance in case of any specified situations (This was also emphasized). Further orders from Allied to the security guards clarified that the personnel were not police officials and that they were not expected to act as such.

Their role was to detect incidents and prevent them when and if possible. Their role was security-related and limited to the office complex building belonging to Podolsky (Gallagher 1).      Podolsky made it clear to the office complex tenants (Including Joan Berg’s employer) that he would provide adequate security all the time. This included parking lot patrols. It was Podolsky who made the decision on the number of security guards that Allied Inc. provided. In the beginning, only 2 security guards were deployed (Gallagher 1).

One of them was situated at the building’s security desk while the other one was allocated the role of roaming around the compound. At some point, another security tower was installed and another rover added. Podolsky had at some point replaced some employees of Allied Inc. who were not qualified for the position of security desk. Over and above, retaining services from Allied Podolsky had installed twenty other security cameras around the entire office complex. The cameras were interconnected on 4 monitors.

The security desk guard was in full control of the view that was appearing on each of the 4 security cameras at any point. Owing to the nature of the several responsibilities that went with his position, the security desk guard had only 30 minutes to concentrate on the monitors.      Of the four security cameras, one was used to survey the parking space on which Joan Berg’s car was stationed.

During scan mode, the camera had the ability to cover the parking space after every few seconds. During the attack, this camera was not scanning the parking space. Podolsky dismissed the services of Allied Inc. 9 months following Joan Berg’s attack and only retained another fresh security service (Gallagher 1).  What the Law says     In order for a negligence case to have sufficient ground, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant had a duty of care owed to them.

Further, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant failed in honoring this duty and that this failure caused them to suffer injuries as a result of the breach. The appellate court had to determine whether Podolsky and Allied security firm owed any duty to the plaintiff, Joan Berg (Gallagher 1). There is no legal duty for landowners to offer protection to others from any criminal acts committed by a third party inside a property he owns unless there is a special relationship that exists between parties in question.

Even though there is no law that requires a landowner to offer protection against criminal acts if the landowner is amenable to the provision of security services then a duty is established at that point. The voluntary undertaking doctrine applies in this case for the landowner to provide reasonable care in protecting the party in question. It can be concluded that Allied Inc. and Podolsky voluntarily got into a contractual agreement.

The terms of this agreement entailed the voluntary assumption of the duty of protecting the plaintiff by both Allied Inc. and Podolsky against any criminal act from third parties in the premises (Gallagher 1).     The Supreme Court recognized that there was a voluntary undertaking in which one party unnecessarily assumed the duty of offering a service to the other party although the party failed in providing necessary care with skill and competence required (Gallagher 1).

In this case, the duty of care arising in this situation was limited in that the Supreme Court recognized that even if the owner of the property voluntarily takes up the duty of protecting others from third party’s criminal acts the undertaking may not be assumed to mean assurance of absolute protection against criminal activity.

The Supreme Court agreed that the defendant was not the absolute insurer for any harm that Joan Berg suffered and there was a clear difference in that the defendant had a clear role in reference to the attacks of this nature. The Supreme Court had to find an answer as to whether the role of the duty of the defendant covered negligent acts that the Plaintiff alleges were the direct cause of the injury she suffered. According to the agreement between Podolsky and Allied Inc.

Podolsky had total control over the maintenance, installation, and operation of the monitoring system. By retaining the services of Allied, Podolsky had assumed responsibility not to be negligent in hiring the security company. Podolsky and Allied agreed to use a concerted approach in the provision of security services.

If a landlord is responsible for hiring security services the said landlord may become liable if they negligently hire a security institution or where they undertake security measures by themselves they have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care in such undertakings (Gallagher 1).  ? ? ?In concluding the case the Supreme Court held that since the defendants assumed voluntary undertakings then there was an enforceable responsibility to the plaintiff (Joan Berg) on the defendants’ part. For this reason, the Supreme Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the cause (Gallagher 1).  2.

   Was the design and evaluation of the security system adequate?     An effective security system must use a methodical approach in order to ensure the physical systems of security effectively integrate technology, people and procedures (Fennelly 77). This allows for the effective protection of property and people against human attacks, sabotage, and thefts. The designer of a security system has to analyze physical security objectives and employ available resources (Fennelly 77).

The designer must also evaluate the installed security system design to ensure that it complies with security program objectives (RP 1).      As far as the security system employed by Podolsky in collaboration is concerned the technology used was quite effective but the security personnel was either overburdened or incompetent to utilize the security systems effectively for the safety of the employees, visitors, and property in the office complex. The security guard manning the security desk was obviously overworked and could not continuously supervise the security monitors.

Had this guard been on the surveillance system monitoring the parking space, they would have definitely noticed the criminal attack incident against Joan Berg and initiated immediate assistance.  3. Was the CPTED concept applied properly?     The CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) concept is premised on the conviction that crime may be impacted by an effective plan and application of a manmade environment (Kinney at al. 376–402).

According to Kinney et al., the CAPTED concept is an essential link between human behavior and the design of the environment. The ability to comprehend the link will make the security system planner have the capability to utilize environmental factors for the purpose of minimizing crime, loss and enhance productivity. Essentially the design of buildings and their construction can impact the level of crime such a place perpetrates. By applying the CPTED principles facilities can enjoy lesser crime and become safer.

CPTED strategies include natural surveillance, access control, and territorial reinforcement (Fennelly and Crowe 23-56; McCrie 302).      In natural surveillance, the security cameras and monitoring system were installed in such a way as to have the ability to recognize unusual or criminal activity although other employees, visitors, and stakeholders were unable to detect a security situation at the parking space. This means that natural surveillance was.