Ga. CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael

• Docket Number: S22G0527, S22G0617, S22G0618
• Decision Date: 29 June 2023
• Citation: 316 Ga. 718,890 S.E.2d 209
• Parties: GEORGIA CVS PHARMACY, LLC v. CARMICHAEL. Welch et al. v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc. Welch et al. v. Tactical Security Group, LLC.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

316 Ga. 718

890 S.E.2d 209

GEORGIA CVS PHARMACY, LLC

v.CARMICHAEL.

Welch et al.

v.Pappas Restaurants, Inc.

Welch et al.

v.Tactical Security Group, LLC.

S22G0527, S22G0617, S22G0618

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: June 29, 2023

Laurie Webb Daniel, Webb Daniel Friedlander LLP, 75 14th St. NW, Suite 2450, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Brian David Trulock, Magmutual Insurance Company, 3535 Piedmont Rd NE, Building 14-1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30305, Carrie A. Moss, Bendin Sumrall & Ladner, LLC, 1360 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 800, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Matthew D. Friedlander, Webb Daniel Friedlander LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 2625, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Keith Robert Blackwell, William Joseph Repko, III, Alston & Bird LLP, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, for Appellant in S22G0527.

Judson Herben Turner, Gilbert Harrell Sumerford & Martin, P.C., 777 Gloucester Street, Suite 200, Brunswick, Georgia 31520, Valentin Leppert, Martha Banner Banks, King & Spalding, LLP, 1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Rebecca Woods, Esther Slater McDonald, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2500, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Adeline K Lambert, Drew F. Waldbeser, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP, 3280 Peachtree Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30305, Kyle D. Hawkins, Lehotsky Keller LLP, 919 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100, Austin, Texas 78701, Elissa Blache Haynes, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, 100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600, Atlanta, Georgia 30339, Martin Adam Levinson, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, 303 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4000, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, for Amicus Appellant in S22G0527.

Naveen Ramachandrappa, Michael Brian Terry, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 3900, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Peter Andrew Law, Brian Colty Kaplan, Ernest Michael Moran, Law & Moran, 563 Spring Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, James Alexander Rice, Jr., Andrew J. Brandt, James A. Rice, Jr., P.C., 563 Spring Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30308-1440, for Appellee in S22G0527.

Gilbert H. Deitch, William Michael D'Antignac, Deitch & Rogers, LLC, 1189 South Ponce De Leon Avenue, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Andrew Timothy Rogers, Kara Elizabeth Phillips, Deitch & Rogers, LLC, 1189 South Ponce De Leon Avenue, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30306, for Amicus Appellee in S22G0527.

Frank Mitchell Lowrey, IV, Jennifer Lauren Peterson, Michael Brian Terry, Naveen Ramachandrappa, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 3900, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3417, Edward Malcum Wynn, III, James Nicholas Sadd, Slappey & Sadd, LLC, 352 Sandy Springs Circle, Atlanta, Georgia 30328-3836, Aleksandra H. Bronsted, Law Offices of Aleksandra Bronsted PC, 6065 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30328-0000, for Appellant in S22G0617.

Bret S Moore, Bret Moore Law, 2296 Henderson Mill Road NE #116, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, Michael James Eshman, Eshman Begnaud LLC, 315 W. Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 775, Decatur, Georgia 30030, for Amicus Appellant in S22G0617.

Nicole Christine Leet, Michael J. Rust, Gray, Rust, St. Amand, Moffett & Brieske, LLP, 950 East Paces Ferry Road, NE, Suite 1700 - Salesforce Tower Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, Laurie Webb Daniel, Webb Daniel Friedlander LLP, 75 14th St. NW, Suite 2450, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Nicholas R. Boyd, Holland & Knight, LLP, 1180 W. Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 1800, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Matthew D. Friedlander, Webb Daniel Friedlander LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 2625, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, for Appellee in S22G0617.

Philip Michael Thompson, Ellis Painter Ratterree & Adams LLP, 7 East Congress Street, 2nd Floor, Savannah, Georgia 31401, for Amicus Appellee in S22G0617.

Warner S. Fox, Christine Lupo Mast, Elliott Crawford Ream, Hawkins Parnell & Young LLP, 303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4000, Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3243, Harold David Melton, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, 600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, for Other Party in S22G0617.

Frank Mitchell Lowrey, IV, Jennifer Lauren Peterson, Michael Brian Terry, Naveen Ramachandrappa, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 3900, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3417, Edward Malcum Wynn, III, James Nicholas Sadd, Slappey & Sadd, LLC, 352 Sandy Springs Circle, Atlanta, Georgia 30328, Aleksandra H. Bronsted, Law Offices of Aleksandra Bronsted PC, 6065 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30328-0000, for Appellant in S22G0618.

Bret S Moore Bret Moore Law, 2296 Henderson Mill Road NE #116, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, Michael James Eshman, Eshman Begnaud LLC, 315 W. Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 775, Decatur, Georgia 30030, for Amicus Appellant in S22G0618.

Warner S. Fox, Christine Lupo Mast, Elliott Crawford Ream, Hawkins Parnell & Young LLP, 303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4000, Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3243, Harold David Melton, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, 600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, for Appellee in S22G0618.

Philip Michael Thompson, Ellis Painter Ratterree & Adams LLP, 7 East Congress Street, 2nd Floor, Savannah, Georgia 31401, Lawrence Lee Washburn, IV, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 3348 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 1400, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, for Amicus Appellee in S22G0618.

Nicole Christine Leet, Michael J. Rust, Gray, Rust, St. Amand, Moffett & Brieske, LLP, 950 East Paces Ferry Road, NE, Suite 1700 - Salesforce Tower Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, for Other Party in S22G0618.

Bethel, Justice.

Collectively, these cases present an opportunity to explore the scope and nature of the liability faced by premises owners, occupiers, and security contractors in cases involving personal injuries arising from third-party criminal conduct.Although the underlying appeals vary with respect to their facts and specific issues presented, the resolution of each appeal necessitates consideration of fundamental principles of premises liability under Georgia law.

In granting certiorari in these cases, we posed the following questions:

1.For a claim brought under OCGA § 51-3-1 that alleges negligent security, to what extent, if at all, is proof that the underlying criminal act occurring on the premises was reasonably foreseeable part of the plaintiff's burden to prove the elements of duty, breach, or proximate cause?

2.In light of the answer to the first question, is the question whether a criminal act occurring on the premises was reasonably foreseeable generally for the judge or the factfinder?

3.What is the legal test for determining whether a criminal act occurring on the premises was reasonably foreseeable?For example, is reasonable foreseeability determined based on the totality of the circumstances, or is some more specific showing required, such as prior, substantially similar crimes occurring on or near the premises?

In Case No. S22G0527, we also specifically asked the following:

4.When apportioning fault, can a rational factfinder determine that an intentional tortfeasor whose actions directly caused the plaintiff's injuries bears no fault for those injuries?

Finally, in Case No. S22G0618, we posed the following question:

5.Under Georgia law, does a party rendering security services to the owner or occupier of property in a premises-liability case owe a duty of care to third parties under any of the bases set out in Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts?

Today, as discussed more fully below, we clarify that the reasonable foreseeability of a third-party criminal act is a determination linked to a proprietor's duty to keep the premises and approaches safe under OCGA § 51-3-1, and that the totality of the circumstances informs whether a third-party criminal act was reasonably foreseeable.Moreover, the question of reasonable foreseeability is generally reserved to the trier of fact, but the trial court may resolve the issue as a matter of law where no rational juror could determine the issue in favor of the non-moving party.Additionally, with respect to Case No. S22G0527, we hold that, under the specific circumstances of the case before us, the verdict apportioning no fault to the intentional tortfeasor is not inconsistent because, when considered in conjunction with the instructions to the jury, the verdict is capable of a viable construction.And with respect to Case No. S22G0618, we hold that a party rendering security services to a proprietor may owe a duty of care to third parties visiting the premises in accordance with the standard outlined in Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

Consistent with these conclusions, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Case No. S22G0527; and in Case Nos. S22G0617andS22G0618, we reverse in part and vacate in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals and remand the cases for reconsideration consistent with this opinion.

I.Background

In each of the cases at bar, the plaintiffs, while present as invitees on property owned, operated, and/or secured by the defendants, sustained injuries resulting from third-party criminal conduct.One person died as a result of his injuries.We summarize the relevant factual and procedural histories of the cases before us below.¹

A.Case No. S22G0527

PlaintiffJames Carmichael was shot during an armed robbery that took place in and around his vehicle in the parking lot of a CVS store; Carmichael thereafter filed a premises liability claim against CVS.Following a trial, the jury awarded damages to Carmichael, finding CVS ninety-five percent at fault for Carmichael's injuries and Carmichael five percent at fault, but apportioning no fault to the shooter.The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the crime was foreseeable.The Court of Appeals further concluded that the jury's verdict apportioning no fault to the shooter...