Kelley v. Baker Protective Services, Inc., A90A1785

• Decision Date: 24 January 1991
• Docket Number: No. A90A1785,A90A1785
• Citation: 198 Ga.App. 378,401 S.E.2d 585
• Parties: KELLEY et al. v. BAKER PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 585

401 S.E.2d 585

198 Ga.App. 378

KELLEY et al. v. BAKER PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. et al.

No. A90A1785.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 24, 1991.

Charles E. Moore, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.

Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, Kent T. Stair, Robert W. Browning, Atlanta, for appellees.

SOGNIER, Chief Judge.

Forrest Kelley and Janet Kelley brought a wrongful death suit against Baker Protective Services, Inc., and its predecessor, Burns International Investigation Services, Inc., for the negligent hiring and retention of an employee, David Scott Goza, an unarmed security guard involved in the murder of Mark Stephen Kelley, the plaintiffs' son. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the Kelleys appeal.

We affirm. The record establishes that Goza, who began working for appellee Burns International Investigation Services, Inc. (hereinafter "appellee") in November 1986, was the sole security guard at the Hormel Plant in Tucker, Georgia, on January 19, 1987. Goza allowed appellants' decedent and three other men (none of them Hormel employees) to enter the plant premises, apparently to conduct a drug deal. Two of the men then murdered appellants' decedent and the fourth man. Goza did not participate in the murders but did assist in the disposal of the bodies. It is uncontroverted that a background investigation performed on Goza by appellee and various State agencies revealed that Goza had no convictions for any crimes or any record of criminal activity or dangerous propensities, or that any accusations of criminal activities or violent behavior had been made against Goza. Appellants' own investigation into Goza's background uncovered only a traffic warning ticket. Although appellants place great emphasis on evidence in the record indicating that Goza's training as an unarmed security guard did not comport with OCGA § 43-38-7.1(a) (training of unarmed private security guards) and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Georgia Board of Private Detective and Security Agencies pursuant to OCGA § 43-38-4(d)(3), in his deposition Goza acknowledged that he knew, without being so instructed by anyone at appellee, that he was not supposed to participate in illegal drug transactions or in murdering anyone while on his job.

" 'For [appellee] to be negligent in hiring and retaining any employee with violent and criminal propensities, it would be necessary that [appellee] knew or should have known of those dangerous propensities alleged to have resulted in [appellants' decedent's death.] (Cits.) The record contains absolutely no evidence which would authorize a finding that appellee knew or should have known that [Goza] was violently or criminally prone.' [Cit.]" Southern Bell Tel., etc., Co. v. Sharara, 167 Ga.App. 665, 666, 307 S.E.2d 129 (1983). See also Big Brother/Big Sister, etc., v. Terrell, 183 Ga.App. 496, 497(1), 359 S.E.2d 241 (1987); Edwards v. Robinson-Humphrey Co., 164 Ga.App. 876, 880, 298 S.E.2d 600 (1982). The submission of...