In the complex world of negligence, the goal is to determine who, if anyone breached a duty the result of which caused the damage the injured party is complaining of. The devil of course is in the details. In a world of victims, nobody is ever responsible for self-caused injuries; in any accident or criminal act it usually follows that the injured party will be compensated for his or her loss by another held liable for the damages provided the purported defendant has the ability to pay. After 9/11, American business suddenly realized that even an act of terrorism can result in liability to anyone linked in the chain of events that resulted in the loss, death or injury to the victims. As a result over the concern about security negligence liability, insurance companies starting offering terrorism coverage and even congress quickly passed the Safety Act, enacted to protect producers of security equipment and providers of security services and their customers from liability deriving from acts of terrorism.
Understanding the ramifications of an act of terrorism on providers of security products or services which fail to stop a terrorist act or on the provider of any activity which fails to protect its customers, employers or passersby from such an act is hard to grasp. But it is no less complicated than sorting through the possibilities of what security failure allowed an assault to occur on a college campus; or who was responsible for failing to protect a hotel guest from a robbery in his room; or why a defective security camera was not replaced in an office building before a tenant was mugged; or how a thief was able to break into a dozen automobiles in the parking lot at the mall undetected. Security liability usually gains attention after the security breach occurs and there is a loss; it needs to be addressed before the injury is sustained.
Every decision taken regarding the employment of security, even a decision not to provide any security at all, has potential consequences for liability for anyone who owes a duty of security to another. FRAC can help in sorting out the issues from identifying duties owed, to developing security programs that meet the requirement of providing reasonable security against reasonably foreseeable risks of loss due to crime or terrorism. Part of the process requires that security be aware of those threats that are reasonably predictable and provide obstacles to those risks which are reasonably designed to prevent losses, injuries and even death from occurring. When a security program fails to prevent a security breach, it is essential to prove that all that could be reasonably done to prevent it was done. FRAC assists in developing programs that insulate against a charge of security negligence in design, in response, in training, in supervision, or even maintenance as well as a host of other areas in which negligent security may be alleged.