Brown v. National Supermarkets, Inc., 48259
| Decision Date | 08 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 48259,48259 |
| Citation | 679 S.W.2d 307 |
| Parties | Pauline BROWN and George Brown, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL SUPERMARKETS, INC., and Sentry Security Agency of St. Louis, Inc. and T.G. Watkins, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Daniel C. Aubuchon, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Ben Ely, St. Louis, for Nat. Supermarkets, Inc.
Sam P. Rynearson, St. Louis, for Sentry Sec. Agency, et al.
Plaintiff-appellants Pauline and George Brown appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the three defendants, National Super Markets (National), Sentry Security Agency (Sentry) and T.G. Watkins, a security guard, employed by Sentry. The issue is whether defendants as a matter of law had a duty to protect the plaintiff from an assault by an unknown third party on defendant National's parking lot.
Pauline and George Brown brought a negligence action against the defendants after Pauline was shot and seriously injured by an unknown assailant in National's parking lot. The Browns allege that the defendants have a duty to protect National's patrons both in the store and in the parking lot and that they breached that duty. Defendants denied that they have such a duty and filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion.
Appellants maintain that summary judgment should not have been granted because as a matter of law their petition properly stated a claim of actionable negligence. The petition asserts that while Pauline Brown was on the National premises she was assaulted, battered and shot by an unknown assailant as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendants. The petition also claims that in the two years prior to Mrs. Brown's assault there were sixteen incidents of reported robbery involving a firearm and seven incidents of reported strong arm robberies as well as 136 other reported crimes on the National's premises. Appellants maintain that this known criminal activity and conduct creates special facts and circumstances giving rise to a duty on behalf of the defendants to protect store patrons against assaults. Respondents deny that the reported robberies or other crimes create special circumstances giving rise to a duty on the part of defendants to protect Mrs. Brown from injuries caused by the criminal activities of an unknown third party.
Summary judgment is granted if the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 74.04(c). Home Building Company v. City of Kansas City, 609 S.W.2d 168, 172 (Mo.App.1980).
As to National the question here is whether as a matter of law a store owner, the security company it has hired under a contract to provide security services and an on-duty security guard have a duty to protect store patrons from criminal assaults by third parties when the store owner knows that repeated violent crimes have occurred recently on the premises.
Our court addressed this issue in Meadows v. Friedman Railroad Salvage Warehouse, 655 S.W.2d 718 (Mo.App.1983). In Meadows a woman was assaulted and shot on the warehouse premises. We there noted that while there is no general duty for the owner of a business to protect a plaintiff against the intentional criminal conduct of unknown persons, the duty can arise where special relationships or special circumstances exist. Id. at 721. Included among the special circumstances and facts there discussed was the frequent and recent occurence of violent crimes on the business premises. The court in Meadows affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a claim because the person there did not "allege that specific prior crimes occurred on the premises, [or] that specific individuals committed violent acts on the premises ...." Meadows at 721. (emphasis added). In Nappier v. Kincade, 666 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App.1984) we noted that if a business owner has notice, actual or constructive, of prior acts committed by third parties on the premises which might cause injuries to the patron he or she may be liable if reasonable care to provide appropriate precautions are not taken. Id. at 862. The court stated that in order to prevail under this rule a plaintiff must allege that specific crimes occurred on the premises. Id. at 862. In the case at bar the plaintiffs have attached and incorporated a detailed list of prior violent crimes that have occurred on National's premises.
Based on the legal theory approved in Meadows and Nappier, that a business owner may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. Quiktrip Corp.
...of the business. See Id.; Warren v. Lombardo's Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d 286, 287 (Mo.App. E.D. 1986); Brown v. National Supermarkets, Inc., 679 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Mo.App. E.D. 1987). Accordingly, where no special relationship existed and the third party was not known to the business owner, a......
-
Schelp v. Cohen-Esrey Real Estate Services, Inc.
...Corp., 734 S.W.2d 270 (Mo.App.1987); Vorbeck v. Carnegie's at Soulard, Inc., 704 S.W.2d 296 (Mo.App.1986); Brown v. National Supermarkets, Inc., 679 S.W.2d 307 (Mo.App.1984); Nappier v. Kincade, 666 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App.1984). In this case, no prior specific instances of violent crimes are ev......
-
Carothers v. Archuleta County Sheriff
...have been permitted in contract cases where a breach of duty directly causes physical injury . . . ."); Brown v. National Supermarkets, Inc., 679 S.W.2d 307 (Mo.Ct.App.1984) (supermarket patron, injured by assailant in parking lot, could sue for damages as third-party beneficiary of contrac......
-
L.a.C. v. Ward Parkway Shopping Center
...758 S.W.2d at 62 (three years); Decker v. Gramex Corp., 758 S.W.2d 59, 63 (Mo. banc 1988) (three years); Brown v. Nat'l Supermarkets, Inc., 679 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Mo. App. 1984) (two years). Here, the parties are in apparent agreement, for purposes of this appeal, that twenty-five months prio......