Background
Laricha and John Alfred sued after their son, Ja’Mere Alfred, was fatally shot on December 25, 2020, in the parking lot of a Walgreens store in New Orleans. Their claims alleged that Walgreens and several security-related entities, including Elliott Security Solutions, LLC, owed Ja’Mere a duty to protect him from foreseeable criminal activity and shared custody or garde of the premises.
Walgreens had retained Single Source Security, LLC, doing business as Protos Security, to arrange security services through subcontractors, and Protos contracted with Elliott to supply an armed security officer. Elliott and its insurer, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Elliott’s assignment was limited to an interior post and did not include parking-lot security. The district court agreed and dismissed the claims against them with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Reading the work order as a whole and considering the uncontroverted testimony, the court held that Elliott’s contractual undertaking required an officer to maintain a presence inside the front of the store, not to patrol or secure the parking lot. Elliott therefore owed no duty to provide security in the area where the shooting occurred, and the Alfreds did not produce competent evidence that Elliott had assumed such a duty.
The court further concluded that, even if Elliott owed or voluntarily assumed a duty to Ja’Mere, the evidence did not support breach, causation, or scope of protection. Surveillance footage showed a sudden shooting without a preceding altercation, suspicious activity, or warning, and the assigned officer testified that he was at his interior post. The court also rejected the shared-garde theory because Elliott did not own, direct, manage, or control the parking lot and had no authority to determine or alter the security measures there.
Key Takeaways
- A security contractor’s duty arising from contract is defined by the contract’s express scope.
- An assignment to staff an interior security post did not impose a duty to patrol or secure the store’s parking lot.
- A limited security-services obligation does not establish custody or garde without evidence of a right to direct or control the premises.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that negligent-security liability against a contractor depends closely on the duties the contractor actually undertook. General references to customer safety or crime deterrence did not expand Elliott’s specific interior-post assignment into responsibility for parking-lot security.
It also distinguishes contractual security responsibilities from custody or garde. A contractor does not share garde merely by providing security services when the property owner retains control over the premises and determines the nature and extent of the security measures.