Quick Summary
Shirley Posecai (plaintiff) was robbed in a Wal-Mart (defendant) parking lot and sued for negligence, claiming Wal-Mart failed to provide adequate security. The jury favored Posecai, but Wal-Mart appealed.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana employed a balancing test to assess duty and concluded that due to limited foreseeability of crime, Wal-Mart had no duty to provide security measures, reversing the lower court’s decision.
Facts of the Case
Shirley Posecai (plaintiff) visited a Sam’s Wholesale Club store owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (defendant) to shop and make an exchange. During daylight hours, as she was placing her items in her car in the store’s parking lot, Posecai was robbed at gunpoint by an unknown assailant who had been hiding under her vehicle.
The assailant forcibly took Posecai’s valuable jewelry and wallet, totaling losses of approximately $19,000. Wal-Mart had stationed a security guard inside the store, but there were no security patrols in the parking lot where the crime occurred.
Prior to this incident, only three robberies had taken place on Wal-Mart’s property in the last six and a half years, with one being a similar mugging in the parking lot in 1992. Despite these incidents and the high crime rate in the surrounding area, Wal-Mart had not implemented additional security measures outdoors.
Procedural Posture and History
- Posecai filed a negligence claim against Wal-Mart, alleging that the company had a duty to provide security in the parking lot due to past criminal activity.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Posecai.
- Wal-Mart appealed the decision, and the court of appeal found Wal-Mart solely at fault for Posecai’s damages.
- Wal-Mart then applied for certiorari, which led to this review by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether Wal-Mart owed a duty to protect Posecai from criminal acts of third parties in its parking lot based on the foreseeability of such criminal activity.
Rule of Law
A business owner is not an insurer of a patron’s safety but does have a duty to implement reasonable measures to protect patrons from foreseeable criminal acts when those acts are foreseeable. This duty arises under limited circumstances when the criminal act is reasonably foreseeable to the owner.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered various approaches to determine the foreseeability of criminal acts and decided upon a balancing test. This test weighs the foreseeability and gravity of potential harm against the burden of imposing a duty to protect against criminal acts.
The court found that due to only one similar prior incident in Sam’s parking lot and the operation of the store during daylight hours, the foreseeability and gravity of harm were slight.
Therefore, Wal-Mart did not have a high degree of foreseeability that would impose a duty to provide security patrols or other security measures. The court emphasized that businesses are generally not responsible for preventing endemic crime and that imposing such a duty would be economically burdensome and could lead to an unmanageable flow of litigation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed the judgment of the court of appeal, holding that Wal-Mart did not owe a duty to protect Posecai from third-party criminal acts under the circumstances of this case.
Key Takeaways
- Business owners are not insurers of patron safety but have a duty to protect patrons from foreseeable crimes.
- The balancing test determines duty by weighing the foreseeability and gravity of harm against the burden of preventive measures.
- A high degree of foreseeability is required for a business owner to be obligated to provide security measures such as security guards.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes a business owner's duty of care to prevent foreseeable crimes on their property?
The duty of care is based on the principle that a business owner must take reasonable steps to protect patrons when crimes are foreseeable. These steps should be proportional to the crime’s foreseeability and gravity.
- For example: A shopping mall in a high-theft area installs surveillance cameras and hires security patrols, anticipating potential pickpocketing or break-ins, thereby acting within its duty of care.
How does a business assess the foreseeability of criminal acts for liability purposes?
A business assesses criminal act foreseeability by reviewing past incidents, considering crime rates in the surrounding area, and evaluating any specific threats or patterns of crime that could affect their premises.
- For example: A nightclub, following several altercations nearby, increases security staff during peak hours, reflecting an acknowledgment of increased risk and taking reasonable steps to mitigate it.
In what ways can imposing a duty to protect against crime become economically burdensome for a business?
Imposing such a duty can lead to significant costs for hiring security personnel, installing surveillance equipment, and maintaining those measures, potentially making operations financially unsustainable.
- For example: A small boutique near a low-crime neighborhood might face closure if required to employ full-time security guards, an economically heavy measure disproportionate to its actual risk profile.
References
Was this case brief helpful?