50 State Security Service, Inc. v. Giangrandi
2013 WL 6212039, 132 So. 3d 1128, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18916 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligent security case, a jury may find that a security company's breach of its duty to patrol is the proximate cause of a crime if sufficient evidence connects the lapse in security to the time and place the perpetrator gained entry, and evidence suggests the crime would have been detected or deterred had the security been properly provided.
Facts:
- Lidia Giangrandi lived in a gated community where 50 State Security Service, Inc. was contracted to provide security, including a roving guard instructed to patrol 'continuously'.
- On January 6, 2003, Rafael Matarranz entered the community on a bicycle through an unguarded pedestrian path.
- Matarranz identified Giangrandi's house as a target after seeing a partially open window.
- For two hours, from approximately 1:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., Matarranz waited outside Giangrandi's home deciding whether to break in.
- During this two-hour period, evidence showed the roving guard patrolled past Giangrandi’s home only twice, spent approximately thirty minutes at the guardhouse, and was off the checkpoint system entirely from 2:29 a.m. to 4:19 a.m.
- Around 3:00 a.m., Matarranz cut the window screen, entered the home, and murdered Giangrandi during the course of the burglary.
- In a sworn statement to police, Matarranz claimed he had no prior knowledge of Giangrandi or her home and that the crime was opportunistic to solve financial problems.
Procedural Posture:
- Lidia Giangrandi's estate filed a wrongful death action against 50 State Security Service, Inc. and an alarm company in a Florida trial court.
- The alarm company settled with the estate prior to trial.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial against 50 State Security as the sole defendant, with the alarm company included on the verdict form as a non-party defendant.
- The jury found 50 State Security and the alarm company equally at fault and awarded damages.
- 50 State Security filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
- 50 State Security, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's denial to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a negligent security action, does a security company's breach of its duty to patrol 'continuously' constitute the proximate cause of a murder when the crime occurs during a documented lapse in patrols and the perpetrator is characterized as an opportunistic criminal?
Opinions:
Majority - Logue, J.
Yes. A security company's breach of its duty to patrol 'continuously' can constitute the proximate cause of a murder when sufficient evidence links the security failure to the time and place of the crime. The jury heard competent, substantial evidence of a breakdown in patrolling during the exact two-hour window the murderer was waiting outside the victim's home. The murderer's own statement characterized him as an opportunistic criminal who would likely have been deterred by a visible, patrolling guard. This temporal and physical connection between the security lapse and the crime's commission is sufficient for a jury to find proximate cause, distinguishing it from cases where the method of entry is unknown. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the jury's verdict.
Dissenting - Rothenberg, J.
No. A security company's breach of duty does not constitute proximate cause when the plaintiff's case relies on speculation and fails to prove that 'but for' the alleged breach, the crime would not have occurred. The plaintiff failed to present competent evidence of a breach, as 'continuously patrolling' does not mean 'continuously moving,' and evidence showed the guard was patrolling. Moreover, causation was not proven because it is pure speculation that more frequent patrols would have deterred this specific criminal, who exhibited many signs of being non-deterrable, such as knowingly burglarizing an occupied, alarmed home. The plaintiff failed to establish cause-in-fact, and the trial court further erred by excluding evidence that would have shown the murderer specifically targeted the victim.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that in negligent security actions, proximate cause can be established through circumstantial evidence that creates a strong temporal and physical link between a security failure and a criminal act. It underscores the high degree of deference appellate courts afford to a jury's role in weighing conflicting evidence and expert testimony, particularly on subjective issues like a criminal's deterrability. The case provides a pathway for plaintiffs to reach a jury by demonstrating that a security lapse created a window of opportunity for an opportunistic crime, even without direct evidence that the perpetrator would have been deterred.
