Common Law Theory of Negligence in Business Security
This paper examines the common law theory of negligence as it applies to business owners and their responsibility for the conduct of security personnel. It outlines the foundational principle that individuals must exercise reasonable care in their actions to avoid foreseeable harm to others. The paper argues that businesses open to the public carry a duty to protect visitors, train employees adequately, and establish security policies. When security guards or bouncers use excessive force or fail to prevent harm, liability may fall on the employing organization. Drawing on legal scholarship, the paper demonstrates how inadequate training and the absence of security protocols can constitute a breach of duty under negligence law.
- Introduction to Negligence in Law: Defines negligence and its application to security
- Business Owner Duties and Public Safety: Business obligations to protect visiting members of public
- Liability for Security Guard and Bouncer Conduct: Employer liability when security personnel use excessive force
- Training, Policy, and Organizational Negligence: How absent training and policy constitutes breach of duty
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clearly defines negligence at the outset and consistently applies the definition throughout, creating a focused and coherent argument.
- Uses concrete, practical examples — such as bouncers using excessive force and unmonitored CCTV cameras — to ground abstract legal principles in recognizable scenarios.
- Connects each paragraph back to organizational liability, keeping the argument purposeful and legally grounded.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied legal reasoning: it takes a formal legal doctrine (common law negligence) and systematically applies its elements — duty, breach, and resulting harm — to a specific real-world context (business security). Each paragraph advances the argument by adding a new layer of liability analysis, from the business owner's duty to the specific failings that constitute a breach.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four thematic sections. The first establishes the legal definition of negligence and its relevance to personal security. The second addresses the duty businesses owe to the public and the consequences of failing to provide adequate security. The third focuses on the employer–employee liability relationship when security personnel use force. The fourth synthesizes the argument by explaining how absent training and policies legally constitute negligence. References follow APA-adjacent formatting.
Introduction to Negligence in Law
Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise the appropriate care expected under specified circumstances. In law, negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care that results in damage undesired by the defendant. The underlying concept of negligence is that individuals should at all times exercise reasonable care in their actions (Scott). This is accomplished by considering the potential harm that one might foreseeably cause to another individual or to property.
Looking at personal security, this principle is quite applicable: even when providing security services, one must take care in how force is applied. Even when force is necessary, it must be used only when absolutely required, and it must be determined that such action will not result in harm to others. Business owners or organizations that hire security guards or bouncers are liable for the harm that these individuals cause to people who visit their establishments. Since altercations take place on the organization's premises, the organization bears liability, and its employees should have been more adequately trained.
Business Owner Duties and Public Safety
Organizations should have policies in place, and employees should be trained on how to handle and prevent foreseeable violent or criminal incidents. A business that is open to the public is required to ensure that visitors to the premises are secure and that no harm comes to them while on site. However, there may be instances in which criminals attack the business; this is precisely why a business should ensure that it has implemented proper security measures and engaged security guards to prevent such scenarios.
If a business does not have security guards, the owner may be found negligent and could be held liable for injuries suffered by any party during a robbery or attack. Employees of the business or organization should also be properly trained on how to handle clients and to avoid any physical confrontation (Kennedy). Security need not be purely physical — organizations can also make use of CCTV cameras to deter criminals, and those cameras should be monitored at all times.
References
Gomtsian, Suren. "Private Ordering of Exit in Limited Liability Companies: Theory and Evidence from Business Organization Contracts." American Business Law Journal 53.4 (2016): 677–744. Print.
Kennedy, Sarah Elizabeth. "The Pathway to Security — Mitigating User Negligence." Information & Computer Security 24.3 (2016): 255–64. Print.
Scott, TJ. "Determination of Constitutional Nature of Contractual and Delictual Claims — Strict Contractual Liability of Security Company — Vicarious Liability of Security Company for Wrongful and Negligent Conduct of Employee: Loureiro and Others v Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd 2014 3 SA 394 (SCA): Recent Case Law." De Jure 47.2 (2014): 374–92. Print.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.