Which combination identifies the elements of a negligence claim against a security guard or PPO?
Explanation
California negligence has four elements: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff; (2) breach — failure to conform to the applicable standard of care; (3) causation — both actual ('but for') cause and proximate (legal) cause; and (4) actual damages. For guards and PPOs, duty arises from the security contract, the foreseeability of harm to invitees, special relationships, statutory mandates (e.g., BSIS training), and voluntary undertakings. Breach is measured against the conduct of a reasonably prudent guard in similar circumstances. The intent/malice options describe intentional torts (a) or criminal mental states (b); contract elements (c) belong to a different cause of action.
Law Reference: Restatement (Second) of Torts §§281-282; California negligence doctrineThis topic, taught in full in the California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide. California Guard Card — Complete Study Guide (2026) — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- California recognizes both common-law and statutory invasion-of-privacy claims. Civil Code §1708.8 ('physical' and 'constructive' invasion of privacy) most directly addresses:
- What is the statute of limitations for a civil false-imprisonment claim against a security guard in California?
- A guard is injured while restraining a combative suspect during a lawful citizen's arrest. Under California Labor Code §3600 et seq., the guard's primary remedy for medical care and lost wages is:
- Under Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, California premises-liability duty is determined by:
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224 addressed when a business owner has a duty to undertake security measures (such as hiring guards) to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts. The court held that:
- California 'special relationship' doctrine recognizes that certain relationships impose an affirmative duty to protect from third-party harm. Which is a recognized special relationship most relevant to security work?
Last reviewed: · editorial process