Joseph Antonio v. SSA Security, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Joseph Antonio v. SSA Security, Inc.

782 F.3d 173, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5400, 2015 WL 1501747

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 2015

Docket13-1031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 782 F.3d 173 (Joseph Antonio v. SSA Security, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph Antonio v. SSA Security, Inc., 782 F.3d 173, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5400, 2015 WL 1501747 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge FLOYD wrote the opinion, in which Judge KING and Judge WYNN joined.

FLOYD, Circuit Judge:

The appellants in this case (“the Homeowners”) consist of 30 victims of one of the largest residential arsons in Maryland history. In this lawsuit, they seek to hold SSA Security, Inc. (SSA) responsible for the arsons, which were allegedly committed by one of its security guards. The district court granted summary judgment to SSA on the Homeowners’ negligence-based claims and on their claim under the Maryland Security Guards Act (“the Act”). In doing so, the district court concluded that the Act merely codified the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior — in other words, that the Act did not expand that doctrine in regard to security companies, contrary to the Homeowners’ contentions.

On appeal, we affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the Homeowners’ negligence-based claims, but certified to the Court of Appeals of Maryland the following question:

Does the Maryland Security Guards Act, Md.Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 19-501, impose liability beyond common law principles of respondeat superior such that an employer may be responsible for off-duty criminal acts of an employee if the employee planned any part of the off-duty criminal acts while he or she was on duty?

Antonio v. SSA Sec., Inc., 749 F.3d 227, 237-38 (4th Cir.2014).

On March 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals of Maryland answered the question in the negative. Antonio v. SSA Sec., Inc., 442 Md. 67, 110 A.3d 654, 2015 WL 859831 (2015). After thoroughly analyzing § 19-501’s plain language, its context in the Maryland Code, its legislative history, and policy considerations of alternative interpretations, the court held “that the Maryland Security Guards Act § 19-501 has the same meaning as Maryland’s common law doctrine of respondeat superior.” Id. at 667, 2015 WL 859831 at *12. The Homeowners do not challenge the district court’s analysis under the common law and therefore concede that they cannot satisfy the doctrine. See Projects Mgmt. Co. v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC, 734 F.3d 366, 376 (4th Cir.2013). Thus, we affirm, in full, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in SSA’s favor.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge FLOYD wrote the opinion, in which Judge KING and Judge WYNN joined.

FLOYD, Circuit Judge:

The appellants in this case (“the Homeowners”) consist of 30 victims of one of the largest residential arsons in Maryland history. In this lawsuit, they seek to hold SSA Security, Inc. (SSA) responsible for the arsons, which were allegedly committed by one of its security guards. The district court granted summary judgment to SSA on the Homeowners’ negligence-based claims and on their claim under the Maryland Security Guards Act (“the Act”). In doing so, the district court concluded that the Act merely codified the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior — in other words, that the Act did not expand that doctrine in regard to security companies, contrary to the Homeowners’ contentions.

On appeal, we affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the Homeowners’ negligence-based claims, but certified to the Court of Appeals of Maryland the following question:

Does the Maryland Security Guards Act, Md.Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 19-501, impose liability beyond common law principles of respondeat superior such that an employer may be responsible for off-duty criminal acts of an employee if the employee planned any part of the off-duty criminal acts while he or she was on duty?

Antonio v. SSA Sec., Inc., 749 F.3d 227, 237-38 (4th Cir.2014).

On March 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals of Maryland answered the question in the negative. Antonio v. SSA Sec., Inc., 442 Md. 67, 110 A.3d 654, 2015 WL 859831 (2015). After thoroughly analyzing § 19-501’s plain language, its context in the Maryland Code, its legislative history, and policy considerations of alternative interpretations, the court held “that the Maryland Security Guards Act § 19-501 has the same meaning as Maryland’s common law doctrine of respondeat superior.” Id. at 667, 2015 WL 859831 at *12. The Homeowners do not challenge the district court’s analysis under the common law and therefore concede that they cannot satisfy the doctrine. See Projects Mgmt. Co. v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC, 734 F.3d 366, 376 (4th Cir.2013). Thus, we affirm, in full, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in SSA’s favor.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 F.3d 173, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5400, 2015 WL 1501747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-antonio-v-ssa-security-inc-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack