Morris v. T.D. Bank
185 A.3d 215
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2018Background
- Plaintiff (59, African-American) was in TD Bank during a robbery; another man handed a teller a note demanding money and left. A bank employee, seeing the note, called 9-1-1 and (contrary to the employee handbook) locked the doors while the call was ongoing.
- Plaintiff remained in the bank lobby; employees mistakenly believed the robber was still inside and that plaintiff might be the perpetrator. Police arrived within minutes, interviewed plaintiff as a witness, and did not arrest him.
- Plaintiff later sought counseling and was diagnosed by a social worker (non-expert) with PTSD attributed to the incident.
- Plaintiff sued TD Bank for negligence (including failure to train/adhere to robbery policy), false imprisonment, assault, and violation of the Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The trial court granted summary judgment for the bank; plaintiff appealed.
- The appellate court found the facts essentially undisputed and reviewed the summary judgment de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TD breached duty to protect customers from foreseeable third-party crime by deviating from robbery policy | Morris: employee violated bank policy (called 9-1-1 before robber left / locked doors), showing breach and inadequate training leading to plaintiff's trauma | TD: call occurred after robber left; policy breach (if any) did not cause plaintiff's asserted injury; internal policies alone don't create duty | Court: No actionable breach as matter of law; 9-1-1 call was after robber left; internal policy violation alone insufficient to create negligence claim |
| Whether a cause of action exists for negligent misidentification (bank employee misidentified plaintiff as suspect) | Morris: employee misidentified him and that negligent identification caused harm (PTSD) | TD: recognizing such a tort would chill citizen cooperation with law enforcement and is inconsistent with precedent/policy | Court: Refused to recognize negligent misidentification as a new tort; public policy disfavors it; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff stated a LAD (race discrimination) claim based on alleged racially-motivated misidentification | Morris: only commonality between robber and plaintiff was race, so misidentification shows racial animus | TD: evidence shows employee's identification was logical under circumstances (note on teller's keyboard, robber left) and Plaintiff offers only speculation | Court: Speculation insufficient; no reasonable factfinder could infer discriminatory motive; LAD claim fails |
| Whether summary judgment standard was correctly applied | Morris: judge failed to view evidence in plaintiff's favor per R.4:46-2(c) | TD: facts undisputed; judge applied de novo review and proper legal standards | Court: Judge applied correct summary judgment standard; no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 (1997) (adopts totality-of-the-circumstances analysis for premises liability re: third-party criminal acts)
- Estate of Desir ex rel. Estiverne v. Vertus, 214 N.J. 303 (2013) (discusses foreseeability and premises-owner duty regarding third-party criminal conduct)
- Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (2015) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause, damages)
- Cast Art Industries, LLC v. KPMG LLP, 416 N.J. Super. 76 (App. Div. 2010) (internal corporate policies alone do not establish legal standard of care)
- Davis v. Equibank, 412 Pa. Super. 390 (1992) (refuses negligence claim for mistaken identification; public policy favors crime reporting)