McKenna v. AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC
2015 IL App (1st) 133414
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Four tenants sue AlliedBarton Security Services (AB) and NACA Madison (NACA) for wrongful death and survival claims arising from a 2006 mass shooting at 500 West Madison building.
- NACA hired AB to provide building security, with the contract aiming to protect life and property and to deter unauthorized access to the office tower.
- Access to the private office tower was controlled by a third-floor concierge, keycards, turnstiles, and elevator restrictions; a lone security officer largely staffed the lobby area.
- Joseph Jackson, armed and distraught, was repeatedly observed in the building and ultimately gained access to the 38th floor with an elevator swipe despite suspicions.
- Brown (AB guard) and Chambers (NACA supervisor) interacted with Jackson but failed to take significant steps to restrain or remove him, enabling the shooter to reach victim offices.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of AB and NACA, but the appellate court reversed, finding issues of duty, negligence, and proximate cause to be reserved for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did AB and NACA owe a duty to protect employees from third-party violence? | Malec argues AB/NACA undertook security duties creating a duty to protect tenants. | AB/NACA contend no duty to protect against third-party criminal acts absent special relationship or negligence in performance. | Yes; duty found due to voluntary undertaking and control/oversight over security. |
| Did the contract between NACA and AB create a duty and raise material questions of fact on negligence? | Contract contemplated life protection and AB’s role in implementing security measures. | Contract did not create liability unless negligence shown; Aidroos is distinguishable. | Yes; issues of negligent supervision and oversight remain for trial. |
| Is proximate cause a near-certain issue for summary judgment in a security-failure case? | Defendants’ security deficiencies were substantial factors enabling the killings. | No proximate cause as a matter of law due to unforeseeability and reliance on guards. | Proximate cause questions fact-bound; not appropriate for summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berg v. Allied Security, Inc., 297 Ill. App. 3d 891, 297 Ill. App. 3d 891 (1998) (voluntary undertakings create duty; issues for jury on proximate cause)
- Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard, 125 Ill. 2d 203, 125 Ill. 2d 203 (1988) (retaining access/control creates duty; foreseeability remains fact-driven)
- Ney v. Yellow Cab Co., 2 Ill. 2d 74, 2 Ill. 2d 74 (1954) (foreseeability governs causation; intervening acts may still be liable)
- Aidroos v. Vance Uniformed Protection Services, Inc., 386 Ill. App. 3d 167, 386 Ill. App. 3d 167 (2008) (distinguishes cases where security contract did not bind to protect personally)
- Rivera v. Garcia, 401 Ill. App. 3d 602, 401 Ill. App. 3d 602 (2010) (foreseeability and scope of risk; jury should decide)
- Prodromos v. Everen Securities, Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 718, 341 Ill. App. 3d 718 (2003) (proximate cause questions often for jury)