Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, three bank employees filed suit against Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., alleging negligence in the design, installation, and monitoring of an alarm system that they claim contributed to their injuries during a bank robbery. The case, based on diversity jurisdiction, centers on whether Protection One owed a duty of care to the employees, even though they were not parties to the security contract. The court denied Protection One's motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed, emphasizing that questions of negligence and foreseeability should be decided by a jury. The plaintiffs contend that the alarm system's configuration, which disarmed both the front and rear doors simultaneously, was unreasonable and not communicated to the bank. Protection One argues it owed no duty to the plaintiffs and that any negligence by the bank or the criminal acts of the intruder were superseding causes, which the court rejected. Additionally, the limitation of damages clause in the contract between Protection One and Commerce Bank was deemed inapplicable to the plaintiffs, who were not parties to the contract. The court's decision highlights the broader duty of care security companies may have to third parties and the limits of contractual disclaimers and damage limitations.
Legal Issues Addressed
Disclaimer of Warrantiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Although Protection One disclaimed warranties in the contract, Massachusetts law does not allow a disclaimer to shield a seller from breach of warranty claims by an injured employee of the buyer.
Reasoning: Despite the appeal of this argument, Massachusetts law maintains that a disclaimer does not exempt a seller from breach of warranty claims by an injured employee of the buyer, who cannot be bound by a disclaimer they did not see or agree to.
Duty of Care to Third Partiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Security service providers owe a duty of care to employees of their clients, even if the employees are not direct beneficiaries of the contract, if their injuries were a foreseeable outcome of the provider's negligence.
Reasoning: The Massachusetts Appeals Court has affirmed that security service providers owe a duty of care to employees of their clients, as seen in Lakew v. Security Provider.
Foreseeability and Superseding Causessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Protection One's argument that the bank's failure to test the alarm system or the intruder's actions were superseding causes was rejected; the foreseeability of harm should be determined by a jury.
Reasoning: If there is uncertainty about whether an intervening act was negligent or foreseeable, the jury should make that determination.
Limitation of Damages Clausesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiffs, not being party to the security contract, are not bound by its limitation of damages clause, allowing them to pursue full damages for their injuries.
Reasoning: Plaintiffs not party to the security contract cannot be held to its limitation of damages clause, supported by cases like Young v. Tri-Etch and Robbins, Inc.
Negligence in Security System Installationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Protection One may be liable for negligence in designing and configuring the alarm system, which allegedly left a rear door vulnerable during business hours, contributing to the plaintiffs' injuries.
Reasoning: A jury could reasonably infer that: (1) Protection One presented itself as an expert in alarm system design and installation; (2) the bank relied on Protection One to choose and configure the alarm system; (3) the chosen configuration was unreasonable as it left a rear door vulnerable during business hours.