POSECAI V. WAL-MART
• posecai robbed at gunpoint in sams club parking lot. No security
• claim for negligence upheld by trial and appeals court because business had a duty to provide security because the robbery was forseseeable.
• supreme court notes that this is the majority rule in other states, but discusses how to determine forseeability. Notes that this is distinct from the general lack of duty to protect from the actions of third parties.
• specific harm rule too restrictive (need to protect from imminent danger on ones property)
• prior incidents test is better but can be applied inconsistently by courts
• totality of the circumstances test good but the court thinks its too broad
• balancing test is finally decided on. Basically weighs forseeability against the burden of the duty… aka cost benefit analysis.
• in this case supreme court applied the balancing test and held that sams had no duty to posecai because of the “low level” of forseeability of the crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment