Security Business

APR 2019

Find news and information for the executive corporate security director, CSO, facility manager and assets protection manager on issues of policy, products, incidents, risk management, threat assessments and preparedness.

Issue link: https://sdi.epubxp.com/i/1105948

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 17 of 68

April 2019 / www.SecurityInfoWatch.com / Security Business 17 reasonable person to realize, not only that their conduct created an unreasonable risk of harm to me but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make their conduct simply negligent. The Ruling Unfortunately for Lansky, U.S. District Judge Samuel H. Mays Jr., characterized these statements as “bare legal conclusions” and ruled them insufficient to bypass the limitation of liability in the parties’ contract. In particular, the court held that Lansky demonstrated no evidence establishing that Protection One showed a “conscious indifference to consequences,” or that Protection One’s conduct was a gross deviation from the applicable standard of care. For these and related reasons, in June 2018, the court dismissed Lansky’s claims and ruled in favor of Protection One. I did not write about this because it created new or ground-breaking law – it did not. I did not write about it because the dollar amount in dispute was significant – it was not. I wrote about this decision because the case serves as simple reminder that there is a substantial and legally significant difference between negligence and gross negligence that could have implications for your business. In fact, these legal concepts are particularly important in the security industry, where the enforceability of limiting conditions in alarm service contracts can hinge on the degree of negligence alleged/proved by the injured party – in this case, Ms. Lansky. Perhaps the central station operator was negligent here. Perhaps he/she should have done more than merely leave a voicemail for Ms. Lansky. Perhaps he/she should have attempted to dispatch the police. However, absent additional evidence, and absent expert testimony on the standard of care – something Ms. Lansky did not offer the court – Ms. Lansky and her lawyer could not meet their burden of proof and could not escape the limitation in the contract. Accordingly, Ms. Lansky was left without a meaningful remedy for her loss – except her own insurance, which is something the Protection One contract likely required her to have in the first place. ■ » Timothy J. Pastore, Esq., is a Partner in the New York law firm of Duval & Stachenfeld LLP (www.dsllp.com), where he is the Chair of the Security Systems and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. Before entering private practice, Mr. Pastore was an officer and Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the Air Force and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice. Reach him at (212) 692-5982 or at tpastore@dsllp.com. WIRELESS THAT WORKS. FLEXIBILITY Unmatched flexible integration. The panel-agnostic EchoStream® network can connect to almost any security system, offering direct interfaces with most industry leading control panels and an extensive selection of transmitters. RELIABILITY Unsurpassed message reliability. With over 30 years in commercial wireless leadership, Inovonics has developed some of the industry's most dependable high-performance sensor networks. RANGE Unparalleled network infrastructure. The intelligent repeater network accommodates virtually any size application, using a frequency-hopping, spread-spectrum technology that sets a new industry standard in commercial wireless range possibilities. 800.782.2709, ext. 1 sales@inovonics.com www.inovonics.com Request information: www.SecurityInfoWatch.com/10213994

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Security Business - APR 2019