Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 752 So.2d 762 (La. 1999)
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. o Posecai lost $19k of jewelry. The Trial Court found for Posecai and awarded $30k. WalMart appealed. o It was shown at trial that the area near the parking lot was a high crime area. The Appellate Court reversed. o 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. o 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
Project Wonderful - Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0
the benefits.