Posecai v. Walmart

Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1999 · Torts

TortsPremises liabilityDutyForeseeabilityThird-party criminal actsduty-risk analysisbusiness owner dutyforeseeability

Facts

Posecai was robbed at gunpoint in Sam's parking lot around 7:20 p.m. while loading purchases into her car; it was still daylight. Sam's had a security guard inside the store protecting the cash office from 5:00 p.m. to closing, but no guard patrolled the parking lot. Evidence showed three predatory offenses on Sam's premises in the six and a half years before the robbery: a 1989 robbery of a delivery man behind the store after hours, a 1992 mugging in the parking lot, and a 1994 purse snatching involving an employee and apparently a domestic dispute. Police officers testified that the nearby subdivision was high crime, but Sam's itself was not considered a high crime location and police were rarely called there.

Issue

Did Sam's owe Posecai a duty to protect her from the criminal acts of a third party in its parking lot? More specifically, were the foreseeability and gravity of the crime risk sufficient under these facts to require Sam's to provide security patrols or other security measures?

Rule

Business owners are not insurers of their patrons' safety, but they owe a duty to implement reasonable measures to protect patrons from criminal acts when those acts are foreseeable. Foreseeability and the gravity of the harm are determined by balancing the crime risk on the property against the burden of imposing protective measures; the greater the foreseeability and gravity, the greater the duty. A very high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to post security guards, while a lower degree may support lesser security measures. The most important factor is the existence, frequency, and similarity of prior incidents of crime on the premises, though the location, nature, and condition of the property also matter.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A discount warehouse in Baton Rouge serves thousands of shoppers each week and is open only from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. In the last four years, eight customers have been robbed at knifepoint in its parking lot during late-afternoon business hours, all near the main entrance. The store has no exterior security.

If a customer is robbed in the same parking lot at 6:30 p.m. and sues the store for failing to provide parking-lot guards, which is the strongest analysis?

Explanation. The majority adopted a balancing test: foreseeability and gravity of harm are weighed against the burden of protective measures. A very high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to post security guards, and the most important factor is the existence, frequency, and similarity of prior crimes on the premises. Here, repeated similar robberies of customers in the same parking lot during business hours strongly support a duty to provide guards.