ABSTRACT
The theory of negligent security is often invoked in areas where the employer had an affirmative duty to safeguard employees or the general public. The extent of the involvement of each of the corporations in the instant case is not determinable at this stage in the proceedings. Thus, the dismissal with prejudice cannot be sustained upon the basis that the allegations of the complaint show that the duty alleged did not exist. The State's first ground for reversal of the judgment in claimant's favor is that because it did not waive its sovereign immunity from liability for the exercise of discretionary judgments regarding general security measures in a prison dormitory, it cannot be held liable for claimant's loss. The level and degree of security appear to be dependent upon the past history and type of workplace as well as the employer's actual or constructive knowledge that a risk exists.
