A Chicago security company has failed in its bid to check out of Nike’s efforts to make it liable for injuries suffered by one of its security guards when a shoplifter sliced the guard with a knife at a Nike store on Chicago’s southwest side.
On May 3, U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. denied the motion for summary judgment requested by security and private investigation firm David A. Eshoo and Associates, as they sought to be excused from the legal tussle between one of Eshoo’s employees and the retail arm of athletic apparel maker Nike over the guard’s injuries.
The dispute dates to March 2019, when plaintiff Dewayne Mason filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Nike Retail Services Inc.
According to the complaint, Mason was employed by Eshoo as a security guard, stationed at the Nike Community Store in the 8500 block of S. Cottage Ave., in Chicago’s Chatham neighborhood.
In March 2018, Mason was working at the store when store managers allegedly attempted to prevent a shoplifter from making off with merchandise. According to court documents, security guards at the store were instructed not to intervene in cases of shoplifting, under a policy allegedly established by Nike. Rather, they were to only intervene if someone presented a threat to people in the store.
According to the complaint, when confronted by the managers, the shoplifter allegedly pulled a knife, at which point Mason allegedly began to struggle with the alleged assailant. During the struggle, Mason’s hand was sliced, resulting in severed tendons in his fingers, and other injuries.
Mason then sued Nike, asserting he would not have been injured, if the managers had not confronted the shoplifter, sparking the violent altercation, in violation of company policy.
In response to the lawsuit, Nike filed suit against Eshoo, claiming Mason alone violated company policy, and had been improperly trained and supervised by Eshoo.
Nike “alleges that “[t]here was no threat of violence on the date of the occurrence, and [Plaintiff’s] actions in engaging the suspected shoplifter in a physical altercation was in direct violation of Nike’s safety and security guidelines,” according to court documents.
They further argued Eshoo’s contract with Nike required it to cover Nike’s damages, should a court order Nike to pay Mason for his injuries.
Eshoo responded by asking the court to toss Nike’s coverage claims, arguing Mason’s injuries were caused by the confrontation allegedly initiated by Nike’s employees.
Judge Dow, however, said that is not enough to allow Eshoo to escape Nike’s claims at this point.
“… Because the agreement requires Eshoo to indemnify and defend Nike ‘from and against all claims and Losses asserted directly or indirectly by any third party person arising out of any actual or alleged … negligent act or omission of” Eshoo or its employees, Nike states a claim here,” the judge wrote.
Mason is represented in the action by attorneys Robert Robertson and Marko Duric, of the firm of Robertson Duric, of Chicago.
Nike is represented by attorney Kimberly M. Hare, of the firm of Kutak Rock LLP, of Chicago.
Eshoo is represented by attorneys Patrick C. Dowd and Michael G. Patrizio, of the firm of Dowd & Dowd Ltd., of Chicago.