Susan Simpson v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
698 F. App'x 188
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Susan Simpson was robbed in the parking lot of a Dollar Tree in Monroe, Louisiana; the Simpsons sued Dollar Tree for negligence.
- District court granted summary judgment for Dollar Tree, finding no duty to protect Simpson from a third party crime; Simpsons appealed.
- Louisiana law uses a foreseeability-and-gravity balancing test to determine a business’s duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts.
- Most important factor is existence, frequency, and similarity of prior incidents on the premises, but other factors (location, property condition, business conduct) also matter.
- Plaintiffs alleged facts raising duty: store escorted female employees/customers to cars at night, assistant manager requested security cameras, questions whether security personnel were used, and a prior armed robbery at the location.
- Fifth Circuit vacated summary judgment and remanded, finding a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Dollar Tree owed a duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dollar Tree owed a duty to protect Simpson from third-party criminal act | Dollar Tree knew or should have known of foreseeable risk (escorts, camera requests, prior robbery) and therefore owed duty to implement reasonable security | No sufficient foreseeability/ prior similar incidents to impose a duty for heightened security | Genuine issue of material fact exists on duty; remand for further proceedings |
| Relevance of prior incidents for duty determination | Prior incidents plus store practices show foreseeability | Absence of frequent/similar prior crimes negates duty | Prior incidents are important but not dispositive; other facts may create duty |
| Weight of store’s internal precautions/recognition of risk | Store’s escorting practice and camera requests evidence recognition of risk and need for measures | Such evidence is insufficient without prior crime pattern | Store’s own actions can support existence of duty; factfinder must decide |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Plaintiffs produced facts that could establish duty | Defendant argued no genuine dispute of material fact | Summary judgment improper; case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 752 So.2d 762 (La. 1999) (adopts foreseeability/gravity balancing test; prior incidents are most important factor)
- Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 816 So.2d 270 (La. 2002) (absence of prior similar incidents does not preclude duty; a business’s security plan and actions may establish duty)
- Schweitzer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 861 So.2d 747 (La. Ct. App. 2003) (store’s transition to 24-hour operation and internal recognition of increased risk can create duty to implement reasonable security)
- Moody v. Farrell, 868 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment: de novo; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)