An armed security guard whose offsider pointed a loaded gun at his face has failed in a claim against his employer for damages sustained in the course of his job. 

Lance James Garrett sued for psychiatric injury, including PTSD and a major depressive disorder due to the incident, claiming his employer was “vicariously libel” for the actions of guard Corey Thrower. 

After the Victorian Supreme Court dismissed the claim, he sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court dismissed his appeal last month. 

Garrett was working with Staff Factory which was deregistered before the proceeding. He brought the action against the Victoria Workcover Authority, Staff Factory’s compulsory workplace insurer. 

The court heard in June 2014 the guards were waiting in their vehicle for a truck they were to escort when, for no apparent reason, Thrower pulled his loaded .38 Smith & Wesson firearm out of its holster and pointed it directly at Garrett’s head for 10 to 15 seconds. 

Garrett, who had been in the job for one month, says because of the incident, he suffered psychiatric injuries, including PTSD and a major depressive order. 

He claimed Staff Factory breached its duty of care, by failing to carry out sufficient background checks and screen Thrower for his suitability to work as an armed guard, for failing to adequately train and instruct him in appropriate firearm usage, and for failing to enforce policies and procedures relating to gun safety. 

Secondly, Garrett claimed that Staff Factory was vicariously liable for the intentional acts of Thrower. In pointing the firearm at him, Thrower engaged in an unauthorised mode of performing an authorised act that was interwoven with, and connected to, the performance of his duties as an armed security guard. After a six-day trial, the court dismissed Garrett’s claim for damages. 

On appeal, Garrett argued the trial judge erred by failing to find that the employer was vicariously liable for the actions of Corey Thrower. 

But the court found that Thrower’s actions were entirely disconnected from the role that he was required to perform as a security guard.  

“As such, the circumstances of this case were completely different, and distinguishable from cases in which vicarious liability has been imposed where a security guard has exercised excessive zeal or force in performing his or her authorised duties.”  

While Thrower’s employment provided the opportunity for him to perform the wrongful act of pointing his weapon at Garrett, it could not be concluded that that employment, or the circumstances of it, constituted the occasion for Thrower to do it, the court ruled. 

Separately, on January 22, 2015, Thrower pleaded guilty to five charges of unlawful assault.