Aside from the human toll of death or suffering that may be experienced because of negligent or inadequate security, what responsibility does the church itself hold when something happens?

The reason I bring this up is because of an article that was written recently by Leischen Stelter, who is Managing Editor of Security Director News.

Ms. Stelter wrote an interesting article about an incident at a hotel in New Jersey where an employee was attacked and severely injured by a mentally ill man from Cincinnati (http://www.securitydirectornews.com/blogspm/?p=1842).

The hotel employee sued and recently won a $2.5 million judgment against the alarm company that installed and maintained the alarms.

During the assault the worker pressed the hotel's panic/duress alarm, which was not working and had not been working for an estimated 16-weeks (read the whole story at: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/alarm_company_settles_lawsuit.html).

The point that Ms. Stelter makes in her article is what responsibility should the hotel be held accountable? Doesn't the ultimate responsibility rest with the "end user" of the alarm? Shouldn't the hotel have ensured that their alarm was working properly?

Now we cannot be sure of all the legalities of this case and if the hotel did in fact pay something to the employee. According to news reports the woman is still out of work on disability because of the psychological trauma and this is two years after the incident, which occurred on July 4, 2008.

But Ms. Stelter maintains, and I have to agree, that the end user should ensure that their protection systems are working properly.

I was at a church not too long ago doing a risk assessment and saw this exact scenario.

It is a fairly big church in terms of the size of the building and they had a receptionist in their lobby during regular business hours (Monday through Friday), which is great and a step above many churches. And this church did a good job because they locked all other doors, forcing visitors to go to the door where the receptionist was located, which, again, is great for access control and a step above what many churches do in leaving multiple doors unlocked during the day.

As always, when I go to a church and see a receptionist, I ask them what they would do if someone came in and became aggressive or even violent. Control into the church is great, but once the person is in, you are no longer protected.

In this particular case there was a panic alarm that had been installed prior to the church buying the building, but it was not working.

What if the same scenario played out in this church and the receptionist was attacked? In this case there was no alarm service provider to absorb the liability; the church knew there was a non-functioning panic alarm at the receptionist desk, but chose not to have it fixed or re-connected.

I am not an attorney, but have many friends who are and have dealt with courts, lawsuits, and liability issues for a long time. This case in New Jersey was not the first where there was a multi-million dollar judgment for negligent security and I am sure it won't be the last.

But how would your church fair in such a lawsuit? How many risks are present that your church leadership is aware, yet makes the conscious decision not to address? Would your insurance company back your church if it knew church leadership had knowledge of risks and ignored them?

These are all questions and "what if" scenarios that you need to play out now.

Consult with your attorney, contact your insurance representatives, get a risk assessment completed and find out what are your risks, exposure, and liability.

Human death and suffering is bad enough and we know security is never 100%. But willfully ignoring what is reasonable and prudent may find the church in court and facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit that odds are they cannot win.

In Christ,
Jeff Hawkins
Executive Director