Master Louisiana Supreme Court adopts a balancing test to determine a business's duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts and finds no duty on the facts. with this comprehensive case brief.
Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores is a leading premises-liability case on whether and when a business owes a duty to protect its customers from criminal acts by third parties. The Louisiana Supreme Court used the case to clarify the proper duty standard for landowners, explicitly choosing a foreseeability–burden balancing test over several competing approaches used in other jurisdictions. In doing so, the court emphasized that businesses are not insurers of customer safety, and that the duty to provide security measures depends on the degree of foreseeable risk weighed against the costs and practicality of the proposed precautions.
For law students, the case is significant because it cleanly organizes the doctrinal landscape: specific-harm, prior-similar-incidents, totality-of-the-circumstances, and the balancing test. It illustrates how courts locate the foreseeability inquiry at the duty stage and calibrate the scope of any protective duty in light of policy considerations and empirical evidence. Posecai is frequently paired with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 and California's Ann M. line of cases to teach how courts handle third-party criminal conduct on business premises.
Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 753 So. 2d 762 (La. 1999)
While returning to her car after shopping at a Sam's Club (owned by Wal-Mart) in Kenner, Louisiana, the plaintiff, Ms. Posecai, was robbed at gunpoint in the store's parking lot. No security guard was patrolling the lot at the time, and the store generally did not maintain regular security patrols outside. The lot was large and open, with standard lighting. Ms. Posecai sued Wal-Mart, alleging that it negligently failed to provide reasonable security measures to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks. In support, she relied on police data showing some criminal activity in the surrounding area and a handful of prior incidents associated with the premises, though there was little or no history of similar violent robberies in the parking lot itself. Wal-Mart responded that the attack was not sufficiently foreseeable to trigger a duty to employ costly measures such as security guards and that it was not an insurer of patrons' safety. The trial court found for the plaintiff, holding that the attack was foreseeable and that Wal-Mart had a duty to provide additional security; the intermediate appellate court largely agreed. Wal-Mart sought review in the Louisiana Supreme Court.
What duty, if any, does a business owner owe to protect patrons from criminal acts of third parties on the premises, and what is the proper test for determining when such a duty arises based on foreseeability?
A business owes a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its patrons, including, in appropriate circumstances, protecting them from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. Foreseeability and the gravity of the harm must be balanced against the burden of imposing a duty to protect against the risk. Under this balancing test, the scope of any duty varies with the level of foreseeability: minimal foreseeable risk warrants minimal precautions; only when criminal conduct is sufficiently foreseeable will the law impose a duty to undertake more burdensome protective measures, such as hiring security guards. Businesses are not insurers of their patrons' safety.
The court adopted a balancing test to determine the existence and scope of a business's duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts and held that, on these facts, the risk of the robbery was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty on Wal-Mart to provide security guards or additional parking-lot security. The judgment for the plaintiff was reversed, and her claims were dismissed.
The court surveyed four approaches used by courts nationwide. First, the specific-harm rule imposes a duty only when a landowner knows of a specific, imminent threat; the court rejected it as too narrow because it would seldom allow preventive measures. Second, the prior-similar-incidents test looks to whether comparable crimes previously occurred on or near the premises; while useful, it can be too rigid and may ignore relevant contextual factors. Third, the totality-of-the-circumstances test considers all surrounding conditions, but the court found it risks imposing near-strict liability by allowing relatively modest evidence to trigger expensive security obligations. The court adopted the fourth approach—the balancing test—which weighs the foreseeability and gravity of the harm against the burden, costs, and practicality of security measures. This test aligns with the general negligence framework and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 and its comments, which tie a possessor's duty to knowledge (actual or constructive) of likely criminal conduct and reasonable protective steps in light of the circumstances. The court emphasized that foreseeability is a sliding scale: the more foreseeable and serious the risk, the more a reasonable business must do; conversely, low foreseeability does not justify imposing heavy security measures like armed guards. Applying the test, the court examined evidence of prior criminal activity. While there was some crime in the broader area, the record reflected little history of similar violent crimes on the Sam's Club premises and no pattern indicating that armed robberies in the parking lot were likely. Because foreseeability of this type of attack was low, the law did not require Wal-Mart to incur the cost and administrative burden of deploying parking-lot security guards. Basic precautions (lighting, sightlines) were sufficient under the circumstances. The court concluded that imposing a duty to provide guards would effectively make retailers insurers against criminal acts—a policy the court rejected. Therefore, Wal-Mart owed no duty to undertake the additional security measures advocated by the plaintiff, requiring reversal.
Posecai is a cornerstone premises-liability case that clarifies duty for third-party criminal acts by adopting a structured balancing test. It teaches students to locate foreseeability at the duty stage and to analyze how the magnitude of risk interacts with the costs and feasibility of precautions. The opinion provides a clear taxonomy of approaches (specific harm, prior similar incidents, totality, and balancing) and shows how courts incorporate empirical evidence (crime data, incident patterns, site characteristics) without turning businesses into insurers. Posecai is widely cited in duty and premises-security litigation and is a staple for exam analysis involving third-party crimes.
The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted a balancing test that weighs the foreseeability and gravity of the criminal harm against the burden, cost, and practicality of the proposed security measures. The higher the foreseeability, the more extensive the duty; low foreseeability does not justify imposing heavy measures like security guards.
The court considered prior incidents as relevant but not dispositive. It rejected a strict prior-similar-incidents rule and instead looked at whether the evidence showed a pattern making the particular type of violent crime reasonably foreseeable. Some crime in the broader area, without similar incidents on the premises, was insufficient to impose a duty to hire security guards.
No. Posecai explicitly rejects making businesses insurers. Duty scales with foreseeability: businesses must take reasonable precautions appropriate to known or reasonably knowable risks, but they are not required to implement costly or extraordinary measures unless the risk of the specific criminal conduct is sufficiently foreseeable.
Posecai's balancing approach is consistent with § 344 and its comments, which impose a duty on possessors of land to protect invitees when the possessor knows or should know of likely criminal conduct. The court uses § 344's knowledge/foreseeability framing but formalizes the duty analysis through a cost–benefit balancing lens.
Primarily at the duty stage. Posecai uses foreseeability to determine whether a duty to implement particular protective measures exists at all and, if so, its scope. Breach then examines whether the defendant failed to meet that duty under the circumstances.
Businesses should monitor incident patterns on their premises and nearby, assess site-specific risks (layout, lighting, traffic), and scale precautions to the demonstrated risk. Minimal risks call for baseline measures (e.g., lighting, visibility); a pattern of violent crime may warrant costlier steps (e.g., patrols). Documented assessments help show reasonable care.
Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores reshaped Louisiana premises-liability law by adopting a foreseeability–burden balancing test for third-party criminal acts. The decision underscores that while businesses must act reasonably to protect invitees, they are not absolute guarantors of safety. Duty expands or contracts with the evidence-based probability and severity of harm.
For law students and practitioners, Posecai provides a durable analytical framework: identify crime patterns and contextual factors, evaluate the gravity of potential harm, and weigh them against the costs and feasibility of protective measures. Its structured method is influential beyond Louisiana and remains central to evaluating security-standards claims against commercial landowners.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →