Other
752 So. 2d 762 (La. 1999)
Study notes for Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
A business has no duty to protect customers from unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties without prior knowledge of similar incidents.
In Posecai v. Wal-Mart, the Louisiana Supreme Court addresses the pivotal issue of the scope of a commercial entity's duty to protect its customers against criminal acts. The court underscores that while businesses have an obligation to ensure a safe environment, this duty does not encompass liability for unpredictable criminal acts unless there is a history of prior incidents that would make such acts foreseeable. Emphasis should be placed on the court’s analysis of foreseeability and whether Wal-Mart had prior notice of similar criminal activity in its parking lot, which contributed to its conclusion of non-liability.
This case is significant in that it helps define the parameters of a business's duty to protect patrons while also highlighting the limits of liability in tort law regarding acts of third parties. Students should pay attention to the reasoning behind the court's stance on foreseeability and its reliance on the absence of evidence demonstrating past similar events that could have alerted Wal-Mart to take preventative measures.
Foreseeable Duty Denied (FDD)
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Miller v. Baird | In Miller, the property owner had prior knowledge of criminal activity prior to the incident, which established foreseeability and a duty to protect customers. |
| Marnell v. Broadmoor | Marnell involved a history of violent crime in the vicinity, making the criminal act foreseeable and imposing a duty on the property owner, unlike in Posecai. |
Limiting liability for businesses helps prevent excessive litigation and protects them from being held responsible for unpredictable and isolated criminal acts.
Not holding businesses accountable may undermine the necessity for heightened security measures, potentially exposing customers to unnecessary risks.
This case is often examined in the context of premises liability and the duty of care, particularly regarding the foreseeability of third-party crimes. Expect questions that require students to analyze the duty to protect patrons versus the limits of liability.