BERG v. ALLIED SECURITY INC. et al.

In Berg v. Allied Security Inc. et al. case, Joan Berg, who was the plaintiff in the case filed a petition against the Allied Security Inc. and Podolsky & Associates Inc. in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The petition was for personal injury act that Berg Inc. et al. had effected on the plaintiff. The Circuit court, on 4th September 1996, gave a ruling judgment that was in favor of the two defendants. After exactly one month, which was on 4th October the same year, the plaintiff moved back to the Circuit court to seek reconsideration and therefore requested the court for a leave to amend. The Circuit court, on the 15th of October, denied the plaintiff the leave to amend. The plaintiff decided to file a notice of appeal which she did after five days, which was on 26th November.

After the filing of the appeal, the defendant, in the Appellate court argued that the notice of appeal by the plaintiff was untimely. In spite of the appeal being filed after only one week after disposal by the Circuit court, the defendants argued that the Appellate court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appeal by saying that the plaintiff’s motion did not qualify to present the motion as per section 2-1203 of the 735 ILCS 5/2-1203 (West 1998) code of civil procedure (Clinton, 791). The appellate court, however, disregarded the jurisdiction challenge by the defendants and consequently addressed the appeal by the plaintiff. Citing the existence of material facts on the issue, the appellate court held that the summary judgment was improper. The summary judgment granted in favor of the defendants by the Circuit court was put aside by the Appellate court and the case was to proceed in the Circuit court.

After the judgment, the two defendants sought for a leave in the Supreme Court. Just as they had done in the Circuit court, the defendants, in the supreme court the defendants argued that the post-judgment motion by the plaintiff lacked the sufficiency to toll the filing time since the filing was done 30 days after the Circuit court’s ruling and added still that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s appeal (Clinton, 791). The Supreme Court of Illinois gave both the defendants leave to appeal. Noting that the plaintiff had presented her case 42 days after the denial of her motion by the circuit court, the Supreme Court of Illinois vacated the court of appeals decision and thus dismissing the appeal. Under rule 303(a) of the Supreme Court, an appeal notice should be filed within the first 30 days of the judgment (Marshall, 497).

The plaintiff, Joan Berg, on the 27th of March 1992, was attacked by a man who held a solid metal bar in his hand in a parking lot as she was getting back to her workplace for the 2 p.m. to 12 a. m. shift. She had gone to pick some pizzas for her fellow workers. The plaintiff was hit in the back of her head as she stepped out of the car. She was repeatedly struck using the metal rod after being pushed into the front seat of the car. The attacker only fled after Joan Berg sounded the horn. According to existing records, this was the first case of violent attack although there were about 20 cases of automobile and property damage and one case of fondling of a woman’s buttock.

On matters security, there was a lease between the plaintiff’s employer and Podolsky, who was the landlord. Some security rights that landlord is reserved to is installation, operation and maintenance of security systems in buildings that monitor, via the use of CCTV cameras or any other means, all the people leaving an entering the building. Incidentally, Podolsky had an already put in place monitoring system and in addition, he had hired Allied to offer a 24 hours security on his premises. There was some mutual agreement between Podolsky and Allied where the contractor (Allied) would be responsible for the furnishing of security personnel. Allied, therefore, issued its guards with the following orders:

1. Keeping unauthorized persons from the premises so that to lessen risks of assault, theft, and vandalism.
2. Assisting the employees and the visitors to have access control of the premises environments.
3. Lessening threats of property damage due to flooding, fire and equipment failure among other causes.

To achieve this, they were charged with the duties of maintaining visibility of very high level, effectively dealing with the arising situations such as equipment failure or unauthorized visitors, relentless alertness and reporting of suspicious cases such as loiterers and also seeking for appropriate assistance in critical situations (George, 15). Having done this, Podolsky made an advertisement to all his tenants, the plaintiff’s employer included, that there will be a 24 hours security including patrols at the parking lot. It was Podolsky’s decision of how many guards will be needed in his premises. On top of having Allied to provide the security, there were 20 installed CCTV cameras all over the premises and connected to four monitors. The Guards were charged with controlling where the cameras viewed at any given time. At the time the plaintiff was attacked, the camera that was to view the parking lot was off and therefore would not scan. Podolsky fired the Allied security nine months after the attack and hired a new security team to offer the security services.

In such a case, the plaintiff had to provide sufficient facts to show that there existed a duty to the plaintiff by the defendant, show a breach of the duty and a proximately resulting injury from the breach. According to White (11), landlords are not required by law to protect a person from criminal activities perpetrated by a third party on their property unless there is an existing special relationship between the parties. A Landowner may, however, voluntarily, decide to provide security in their promises (George, 31). Nevertheless, when the landlord agrees to provide some specified security services to his tenants, a duty arises and he is therefore required by the law to provide the services, of which he should not breach the duty (White, 11). In the case of Berg v Allied et. al., Allied and Podolsky voluntarily decided to get into a contract.

In this case, there was a voluntary agreement for one party to protect the other and therefore it was a legal duty for Podolsky to protect the plaintiff against a criminal act (White, 10). The court also recognized the fact that although the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff, it was not construed to absolute protection just like an insurance. In the case, Allied argued that its duties of providing security were limited to the building only and did not include security at the parking lot. Allied added that it did not have authority over the parking lot and in the case of the attack, it would not intervene since it did not have the authority to do so. On his side, Podolsky argued that the attack was unforeseeable since it was the first case of a violent attack on his premises.

Although Podolsky had put up some security measures to curb any unforeseen challenges of security, the protection system was not able to meet its intended purpose. When evaluating and analyzing a Physical Protection System (PPS) design, it is mandatory to first understand and review the protection objectives that the design is meant to accomplish (Valera & Sergio, 200). A PPS integrates procedures, equipment, and people for protection for protection of property and facilities against human attacks, sabotage, and thefts. PPS developers, when installing their IP/CCTV monitors, should ensure that the facilities are in good working conditions ((Valera & Sergio, 200). With this, it is also possible to ensure that the facilities will learn within the specified time. To formulate the objectives of the PPS, the designer should follow three procedural concepts. To begin with, he should characterize the facility conditions and operations. Secondly, he should define all the probable threats and finally, he ought to identify the major targets (Valera & Sergio, 200).

Some guidelines should be observed when designing the PPS systems. The systems work best when detections are far from their targets and delays near to the target (Valera & Sergio, 200). Similarly, there are very close associations between the exterior detections and interior assessment. Without assessment, detection is not detection since it has no use. Additionally, detection devices should be well interlinked with the assessment devices (Valera & Sergio, 200). By the installation of 20 CCTV cameras all around the premises, Podolsky had well designed the detection system to cater for any emerging insecurities in the building. On top of that, he had installed four monitors to cater for the assessment part of the security. In addition, he had put in place some security guards to observe the monitors for any possible detections. It is therefore easy to note that the design and evaluation of the CCTV cameras were effective if they were to be adhered to by the persons responsible for operating them (Seo, 93). However, there are still some limitations that the PPS had. At the time the plaintiff was attacked, the CCTV camera that was installed to detect any unauthorized persons was not in scan mode. The fact that the camera was not in scan mode would suggest different things. First, it would be probable that the system was not functioning properly (Ray & Herting, 19). This would be against the PPS design and assessment criteria. Secondly, it would suggest that there was negligence on the part of the security team who was charged with the mandate of ensuring that there was a 24-hour security on the premises.

According to Cozens, Paul, Greg, and David (340), Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a general concept that explains how crimes can be contained in the natural environment. It is influenced by the layout of the environment which includes how buildings are laid out, and the ease or difficulty of accessing a particular premise. The basic strategy of CPTED is natural surveillance, natural access control and territorial enforcement (Cozens et. al., 74). In natural surveillance, facilities are designed in such a way that makes intruders in a particular environment to be observed by the tenants and employees. Natural access control is the design that facilitates the flow of movements which are naturally controlled by building features and sites (Cozens et. al., 341).

Territorial reinforcement involves the design that makes the residents of a place feel secure and a place that discourages intruders (Cozens et. al., 341). In his premises, Podolsky had not well integrated the CPTED concept as he had only concentrated on the employment of security guards and monitoring CCTV cameras to secure the place. The guards were required to patrol the areas all around the premises to ensure that they man the environment and raise alarm in case of any criminal activities. On the contrary, the security persons were negligent on their duties as they disregarded the parking area where the plaintiff was attacked. According to the plaintiff’s petition, she was brutalized and there was not even a single guard in the vicinity who appeared to rescue her. It was not until she sounded the horn when the criminal fled. Still, no guard appeared to see what was happening in the parking lot and therefore the perpetrator of the crime was not identified.

According to the Berg v. Allied Security Inc. et al. case, it is easy to note that there was no mention of the alarm systems as one of the many security installations that Podolsky had installed. The fact that the culprit of the assault was neither arrested nor identified means that the alarm security system and the display were not well developed (George, 87)). After sounding the horn by the plaintiff, there ought to have been some other workers or security guards who heard the alarm alert and sounded other alarms for an instant reaction to capture the perpetrator of the crime (George, 87). Since nobody else sounded the alarm, it is probable that the alarm display system was not very effective on the premises.

Conclusively, Joan Berg, who was the plaintiff is seen to have lost in a great way since her case did not have the opportunity to be heard since the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the two defendants. On his side, besides winning the case since it did not proceed—as he pleaded, he is seen to have gone an extra mile of protecting his tenants as he had hired some security agents to provide security services. Additionally, he had also installed 20 CCTV cameras and four monitors. All these shows that he had done a great deal of providing security in his premises although there was a case of violent assault which was unforeseeable.

Works cited

Cozens, Paul Michael, Greg Saville, and David Hillier. “Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography.” Property management 23.5 (2005): 328-356.

Clinton, Robert N. “A Mandatory View of Federal Court Jurisdiction: A Guided Quest for the Original Understanding of Article III.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 132.4 (1984): 741-866.

George, James P., and Anna K. Teller. “Conflict of Laws (2007).” SMU Law Review 60 (2007): 817.

Marshall, Thomas R. “Policymaking and the Modern Court: When Do Supreme Court Rulings Prevail?” Western Political Quarterly 42.4 (1989): 493-507.

Ray, David L., and Christopher A. Hertig. “The future of security.” Security supervision and management: Theory and practice of asset protection (2008): 11-20.

Seo, Tae-Woong “An analysis of vulnerabilities and performance on the CCTV security monitoring and control.” Journal of Korea Multimedia Society 15.1 (2012): 93-100.

White, Jonathan Randall. Defending the homeland: Domestic intelligence, law enforcement, and security. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2004.

Valera, Maria, and Sergio A. Velastin. “Intelligent distributed surveillance systems: A review.” IEE Proceedings-Vision, Image and Signal Processing 152.2 (2005): 192-204.