Title: Gardner v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc.
Citation: 538 So. 2d 13
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 30, 1988

538 So. 2d 13 (1988)
Hazel S. GARDNER and Henry Lee Gardner
v.
VINSON GUARD SERVICE, INC.
87-747.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 30, 1988.
Nathan P. Friedlander of Friedlander &amp; Dunning, Mobile, for appellants.
Thomas R. Boller, Mobile, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Hazel S. Gardner and her husband Henry Lee Gardner, sued Vinson Guard Service ("Vinson Guard"), alleging negligence or wantonness, breach of contract, and legal fraud in that the defendant allegedly failed to prevent injury to Hazel. The injury occurred as a result of a breakin at a business at which the defendant company was employed as a security service. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Vinson Guard.
Hazel was employed by Van's Photo, Inc.; her shift began at 5:00 a.m. Vinson Guard was employed, via an oral contract, to provide security guards at Van's Photo.
*14 Although operating under an oral contract, special instructions were given the security officers working at Van's Photo. These instructions stated:
The uncontroverted affidavit testimony was that Vinson Guard was to provide protection for vehicles in the parking lot of Van's Photo and to protect employees traveling to and from their vehicles. A secondary responsibility of the security guards was to patrol the perimeter around the facility and to make their presence evident.
On the morning of November 18, 1983, Hazel arrived at work, to learn that a burglary had occurred. The security guard informed the employees, including Hazel, that he had interrupted someone trying to break into the cigarette machine and that there was no need to call the police because the man had left and he (the security guard) had recovered all of the merchandise. The security guard then proceeded to show the employees where the rear door had been forced open. Hazel testified during her deposition that the security guard represented to her that it was safe to enter the building; she and her fellow employees then went inside to begin work. Approximately 15 minutes later, Hazel went upstairs to the restroom, where she was struck in the abdomen by a second burglar, who then fled, unseen, from the building.
The Gardners alleged that Vinson Guard committed legal fraud through its agent by falsely representing to Hazel that it was safe to enter the building; was negligent or wanton in performing its duties of providing security for the building; and breached its contract to provide security services for the building. Hazel claimed damages for personal injuries and Henry claimed damages for loss of consortium.
On appeal, the Gardners argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Vinson Guard and they raise the following issues:
1. Whether Vinson Guard had a duty to protect Hazel against the criminal attack of a third party, who injured her, and, if so, whether the record created an issue of fact as to whether Vinson Guard was negligent or wanton in performing this duty.
2. Whether Hazel was a third-party beneficiary of the contract for security services between Vinson Guard and Van's Photo and, if so, whether a material issue of fact was presented as to whether Vinson Guard breached that contract, causing injury.
3. Whether the Gardners have a claim for fraud against Vinson Guard where Hazel, relying on a statement made by an employee of Vinson *15 Guard that it was safe to enter the Van's Photo place of business, suffered an injury when attacked by the second burglar, when Vinson Guard knew the building had been burglarized and had failed to find that burglar or to notify police.
We review these issues according to the standard appropriate for summary judgments. Because this action was pending on June 11, 1987, the "scintilla rule" applies. See Act 87-184, Ala.Acts 1987.
Jarrard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 495 So. 2d 584, 585-86 (Ala.1986).
In light of the evidence that the security guard informed Hazel that the premises were safe, a jury question was created as to whether Vinson Guard had assumed a duty to protect the Van's Photo employees while they were inside the building. We, therefore, hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the negligence count.
However, the Gardners' contentions regarding the next two issues must fail. In their brief, the Gardners argue that a cause of action may exist for a third-party beneficiary for a breach of contract. We do not dispute that a cause of action may exist, but we can find no contractual duty imposed upon Vinson Guard. Likewise, having thoroughly examined the record in a light most favorable to the Gardners, we can find no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding the Gardners' fraud claim. The trial court, therefore, did not err in granting summary judgment as to either the Gardners' contract count or their fraud count. Nor do we find any evidence to support the Gardners' claim for wantonness.
Due to the foregoing, we hold that there was evidence presented supporting the Gardners' claims under the negligence count, but that no evidence was presented to support the wantonness, contract, or fraud theories.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.