Posecai was returning to her car in a Wal-Mart parking lot
when she was robbed. She sued Wal-Mart for negligence in failing
to provide security guards for the parking lot.
Posecai lost $19k of jewelry.
The Trial Court found for Posecai and awarded $30k.
Wal-Mart appealed.
It was shown at trial that the area near the parking lot
was a high crime area.
The Appellate Court reversed.
The Appellate Court found that the key point of the case
was whether Wal-Mart owed Posecai a duty to protect. This hinged on
whether it was foreseeable that she might be robbed. There are
four approaches to foreseeability:
Specific harm rule: No duty is owed unless the
landowner is aware of specific imminent harm about to befall the
plaintiff.
Prior similar incidents rule: Foreseeability
is established by evidence of previous similar instances.
Totality of the circumstances test: Start with
the prior similar incidents rule, but add in additional factors
and relevant factual information, to possibly establish foreseeability
despite a lack of prior similar instances.
Balancing test: Balance the foreseeability
of harm and the gravity of harm against the burden of imposing a duty to
protect.
The Appellate Court found the balancing test to be
the most persuasive.
In this case, there had only been 3 attacks in the
Wal-Mart parking lot in the previous 6 years, so it would be unfair to
ask Wal-Mart to provide security because the burden would outweigh the
benefits.
