Simmons, Inc. v. Pinkerton's, Inc.

762 F.2d 591 (7th Cir. 1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P entered into a contract with D where D agreed to provide uniformed guard protection for P's warehouse 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. D would 'ensure a professional, reliable and efficient effort to protect its clients' property and personnel against security hazards.' D explicitly accepted liability for all acts of negligence, fraud or dishonesty on the part of its security employees in the performance of their duties, but disclaimed any other liability. D also represented that its employees were trained both in security and in fire protection. D hired Hayne for the position of security guard. Hayne lied in several instances on his employment application, but the deceptions went undetected because D failed to check Hayne's references and other sources of information about him, in contravention of its own policy and procedure manuals. Hayne did not receive fire protection training, which D's manuals indicated were mandatory for security guards. While D was on duty, a fire erupted in the warehouse. The Chief of the Munster Fire Department requested the Indiana Fire Marshal's Office to investigate whether Hayne might have accidentally or intentionally started the fire. The Office concluded that the fire was of incendiary origin and was most likely set by Hayne as an 'attention getter.' D requested that Hayne take a polygraph examination, which was performed in Chicago. The results of this examination were inconclusive. Hayne agreed to take a second polygraph but did not do so. When an investigator later asked Hayne whether he had taken and passed the second test, Hayne falsely stated that he had. P sued D for breach of the contract, and failure to use reasonable care in providing such services. P called Hayne as a witness and asked if he lied about taking the second polygraph. D objected. The court allowed Hayne to answer and he admitted his lie. P got the verdict and D appealed on a number of grounds one of which was Hayne’s testimony.