|
4237 A question of fact exists about whether the presence of an armed, uniformed security guard, equipped with a baton and handcuffs, who had been hired to protect premises on which plaintiff was employed but who was absent from his post, would have prevented a physical assault on plaintiff by a shoplifter.CitationMUKTHAR v LATIN AMERICAN SECURITY SVCE (Absent Security Guard) 139 CA4 284 [See: Delgado v Trax 36 C4 224, T/AT 8/05; Artiglio v Corning 18 C4 604, T/AT 9/98; Currie v O'connor Hosp 21 CA4 140, T/AT 2/94]
|
|
