Locations

People Search

Filter
View All
Loading... Sorry, No results.
bscr
{{attorney.N}} {{attorney.R}}
{{attorney.O}}
Page {{currentPage + 1}} of {{totalPages}} [{{attorneys.length}} results]

loading trending trending Insights on baker sterchi

FILTER
Feb 13, 2017

Premises Liability: The Responsibility of a Business Owner to Act When a Foreseeable Danger is Posed to an Invitee

ABSTRACT: A premises owner's duty to protect an invitee from the criminal acts of third parties is triggered by foreseeability. An employer's safety policies and procedures - and a failure to follow them - may be considered when determining the owner/employer's negligence toward an employee, in an assault that occurred on company premises.

In Missouri, business owners generally have no duty to protect invitees from criminal acts of third persons. But there is an important exception to this general rule known as the specific harm exception.  As explained and applied in a recent Missouri Court of Appeals case titled Wieland v. Owner Operator Services, Inc., “a duty of care arises when a business owner realizes, or should realize, through special facts within his knowledge that criminal acts of a third party are occurring or about to occur on the premises.”

In Wieland, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff-employee for $3.25 million for an injury she sustained - inflicted by a third party - while she was on her employer’s premises.  The employee had expressed safety concerns to her employer regarding a former domestic partner.  Her employer had issued and implemented certain safety protocols to handle situations such as this.  Just weeks after alerting her employer, the employee’s former partner entered company parking lot, hid in the employee’s car, and ultimately shot her in the back of her head when she tried to return to the company office building after discovering him in her car. 

On appeal, the company argued that the trial court had improperly instructed the jury that it should find for plaintiff if “defendant knew or by using ordinary care could have known that [the assailant] was in the parking lot and posed a danger to plaintiff.”  The company argued that the specific harm exception to the general premises liability rule does not apply unless the premises owner has actual knowledge of the third party’s entrance on its premises; and that it therefore had no duty to take action until it knew that the assailant was on its property.  The Court of Appeals disagreed and sustained the jury verdict, holding that the “special facts and circumstances” exception is premised on foreseeability, not actual knowledge.  It was therefore proper for the jury to consider the company’s pre-existing knowledge, and the actions it should have taken in the exercise of ordinary care, in determining when the company could have known of the third party criminal’s arrival.  The evidence at trial, which the jury properly considered, included the company’s own security protocols, the presence of security cameras, and the availability of extra police patrols had they been requested.

This opinion emphasizes the need for an employer or other business owner to stay actively involved and abreast of its invitee’s safety concerns. Upon receiving information that may lead to the “foreseeability of harm” to an invitee, it is imperative that businesses follow internal safety protocol to assure the safety of its employees or customers. The foreseeability of a dangerous third-party’s presence triggers the duty to act; actual knowledge of a dangerous third-party’s presence is not required.  Here, had the company offered the employee a closer parking spot, an escort to her car, and routinely checked the parking lot surveillance footage, the resulting injury might have been averted.