752 So. 2D 762 (1999)
Plaintiff was robbed in defendant's parking lot. Plaintiff sued, contending that defendant was negligent in failing to provide adequate security in the parking lot considering the high level of crime in the surrounding area. The trial judge ruled that defendant was 75 percent at fault and the unknown perpetrator was only 25 percent at fault. Defendant appealed. The court of appeal found that the trial judge erred in apportioning fault between defendant and the criminal who robbed plaintiff. It amended the judgment to find defendant solely at fault for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. The court granted certiorari to review the correctness of that decision.
- The court reversed, finding that defendant owed no duty to protect plaintiff from the criminal acts of third parties.
- The foreseeability was not present to impose a duty on defendant to provide a security guard in its parking lot.
The judgment of the court of appeal was reversed and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant. Defendant corporation owed no duty to protect plaintiff from being robbed in defendant's parking lot. The foreseeability was not present to impose a duty on defendant to provide a security guard in its parking lot.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law