| Venue: | LA SC |
| Facts: | Posecai is robbed by someone hiding under her car: she loses $19K in jewlry (?!). There was a security guard to protect the store, but not the lot. |
| Posture: | Finding for plaintiff at trial, affirmed on appeal (with an adjustment to damages). Appeal. |
| Issue: | Did Sam's owe a duty to protect Mrs. Posecai from the criminal acts of third parties under the facts and circumstances? |
| Holding: | No. Reversed. |
| Rule: | Business owners have a duty to implement reasonable measures to protect their patrons from foreseeable criminal acts. |
| Reasoning: | There's no general duty to protect others from the criminal acts of
third parties, but when the act is reasonably foreseeable, a
duty imposes itself on business owners. The totality of the
circumstances is the governing factor, and we balance the
foreseeability of harm against the burden of providing protection.
We do this because security is expensive, and businesses aren't
generally responsible for crime, but they are in the best position
to know about risks on their premises.
Lots of people use this parking lot, there had only ever been one prior robbery. This was not foreseeable enough to impose a duty to patrol the parking lot. |
| Dicta: | |