|
What happens when a hospital uses a contract guard service with in-house security management, and the hospital is sued for inadequate security? Will the hospital be able to transfer the liability to the guard service provider, or will the guard contractor transfer liability to the hospital?
The time to consider this question is now. Are hospitals that micro-manage their contract security officers are being unduly exposed to potential liability resulting from the negligence of their contractor? If the contract guard service drops the ball and it can be shown that the hospital is, in effect, a co-employer, the hospital may be exposed to the same culpability as the guard force.
Lawsuits that result from claims of inadequate security, or intentional torts such as use of excessive force, can leave both parties pointing the finger at one another. It is important to have a clear understanding in writing as to where the lines of demarcation are. The hospital generally has the responsibility to determine the duties and standards to be met by the security provider. If those standards fall below a reasonable standard of care, the hospital may be held equally culpable or even more culpable than the security provider.
If, on the other hand, the duties required of the contractor by the hospital are appropriate to industry standards and the security provider fails to live up to those standards, the hospital may reduce its exposure significantly. However, if it can be shown that there is a long-standing pattern and practice of substandard performance by the guard company and the hospital took no remedial measure to address the shortfall, the hospital could again suffer the greater proportion of exposure.
In most security lawsuits that are filed these days, the additional claims of negligent hire, negligent retention, negligent supervision, and negligent training are usually tacked on for good measure. If the contract provider is truly culpable for negligence, the hospital must not be unnecessarily dragged into the litigation. The hospital generally has a duty to ensure that the terms of the contract are being met on a day-to-day basis. If the hospital fails to ensure that the contract security provider is fulfilling all the terms of the contract, the hospital may be exposed to culpability.
When the hospital is employing a contract security force and a lawsuit is filed asserting inadequate security, who is culpable? For example, assume a visitor to the hospital is severely assaulted in the parking facility. The victim files a premises liability lawsuit claiming inadequate security. In these cases, hospitals often claim that the security provider determined the breadth and scope of the security program, and if that program came up short, it's their fault. Contract security providers are not always security experts. They are providers of security personnel.
The hospital has the ultimate responsibility to determine the role of the contract security provider. The contractor may suggest viable solutions. The hospital must have sufficient expertise to accept or reject those suggestions. Bear in mind that contract guard agencies often have a vested interest in placing as many FTEs as possible. These agencies often have a tendency to address all security problems with more manpower. On the other hand, providers of security technology such as alarm companies and CCTV companies will assert they can cut your FTEs by installing more cameras and card readers. A security professional, who is not tied to either provider, can often provide the most cost efficient solutions.
The way to avoid these exposures, or at least reduce the risk, is to write an explicit RFP (request for proposal) that anticipates the pitfalls. Second, have a contract written by the hospital's legal department that clearly defines the lines of responsibility. Hospitals that summarily sign the guard company's contract may be giving away their advantage. Be sure to have the legal department, in concert with a qualified security professional, review both the RFP and all agreements between the two parties. Once a lawsuit has been filed, it is too late. A thorough investigation by a security professional of any potential provider is a must. The investigation should include a trip to other sites they serve as well as their office. The appropriate solutions will vary with geography, size of the hospital, and the surrounding crime environment.
Another important consideration is the quality of service provided by the local security vendors. There are both local as well as national contract guard agencies across the country. The same can be said of alarm, CCTV, and access control systems providers. Are you better off with a local vendor or a national company? An analogy can be drawn from the statement: all politics are local. That means that even the large national companies are only as good as their local operation. When checking references, be sure to investigate how these vendors are doing in the local market.
These are just a few of the primary do diligence requirements. Before any major decisions are made, be sure to fully assess the hospital's existing security posture. Make sure your security program is fully integrated and all of the parts of the puzzle fit together. Make sure your security design is looking at least five years down the road. Finally, continually monitor the program to ensure that it remains contemporary.
|
