Arizona Lawsuit Says Store Owners Cannot Shiled Themselves from Liabiity by Hiring Security Contractros

In a recent court case in Arizona that may have implications here, the Courts have ruled that a store owner may not shield themselves from liability by saying the act which harmed another was caused by employees of a contractor (such as a private security firm) who did the hiring.

The case involves a shopper at a Safeway store who sued Safeway after a private security officer employed by a firm hired by the store "physically and sexually assaulted" him after mistakenly thinking he had shoplifted.

Safeway defended themselves in part by claiming that they officer was not their employee and they could not be responsible for his actions.

The Courts disagreed, saying that Safeway had assumed the obligation when they chose to hire a security firm:

Here Safeway did not initially have a specific, nondelegable duty to provide security services. Instead, it voluntarily assumed that duty within the context of the heightened duty it already owed to its business invitees. Having [voluntarily] assumed the task of providing security services on its premises, Safeway thus created for itself a personal, nondelegable duty to protect its invitees from the intentionally tortious conduct of those with whom it had contracted to maintain a presence and provide security on its premises. Safeway cannot now disclaim liability merely because the individuals it permitted to interact so closely with its customers had been hired by an independent contractor. Were we to hold otherwise, the potential for abuse would be great. Therefore, we hold that when, as here, a business owner assumes a duty to provide security services, that duty is nondelegable, and the owner will not be insulated from liability for the tortious acts of security personnel hired as independent contractors.

You can read the whole report on the case here.  We have forwarded this to CALSAGA Legal Advisor Barry Bradley for his comment as well.