Miles v. Flor-Line Associates

• Decision Date: 22 November 1983
• Docket Number: No. 83,FLOR-LINE,83
• Citation: 442 So.2d 584
• Parties: Guy H. MILES, et ux v.ASSOCIATES, et al. CA 0132.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 584

442 So.2d 584

Guy H. MILES, et ux v. FLOR-LINE ASSOCIATES, et al.

No. 83 CA 0132.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana First Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1983.

David Vaughn, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant Guy H. Miles and Barbara Miles.

Stephen W. Glusman, Baton Rouge, for defendant and third party plaintiff-appellee J.C. Penney Co., and Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Richard Reed, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee Flor-Line Associates.

Before PONDER, WATKINS and CARTER, JJ.

CARTER, Judge:

This is a suit for damages arising out of a purse snatching incident in the parking lot of Cortana Mall.

Plaintiff Barbara Miles was the victim of unknown assailants on April 2, 1980, at approximately 8:45 p.m. in the J.C. Penney Company parking lot at Cortana Mall. Cortana Mall is a large shopping complex in Baton Rouge. The mall, including its 130 stores and 8,067 parking spaces, spans 110 acres. The individual stores do not provide their own security service, but pool their resources and contract for security services with Flor-Line Associates.

On the night of the occurrence, Mrs. Miles and her family had been shopping in the mall. After completing their shopping, Mrs. Miles, accompanied by her oldest son (age 14) and daughter (age 12), exited the mall and began walking toward their car. Mr. Miles and the younger son were to leave the mall in a separate vehicle.

As Mrs. Miles and her two children proceeded down the row of parked vehicles to their car, the children were about twenty yards ahead of their mother. A nearby car then backed out beside Mrs. Miles. At approximately the same time, someone approached Mrs. Miles from behind, pushed her into the backing car, and struck her on the head with a metal object, rendering her unconcious. A passenger in the car then grabbed Mrs. Miles' purse, and the car sped off.

During the purse snatching incident, Mrs. Miles was knocked to the ground and sustained numerous injuries. Mrs. Miles suffered fractured facial bones, a strained biceps with accompanying tendonitis, and a large hematoma on her right arm. The plaintiff also sustained property damage, resulting from the loss of her purse and its contents.

In February, 1981, Mrs. Miles filed suit against Flor-Line Associates, Sears, Roebuck & Co., and J.C. Penney, Inc. for personal injuries and property damage. ¹ The trial court denied the claim of plaintiff-appellant, Barbara Miles, for damages sustained on the premises of defendant-appellee, J.C. Penney Company, Inc. The trial court also denied plaintiff's claim for damages against defendant-appellee, Flor-Line Associates, who provided security for the mall and its parking area.

In applying the duty-risk analysis, the trial judge held that appellees did not have a duty to provide "an absolute guarantee of security." While acknowledging that the security at Cortana Mall at the time of the attack on plaintiff may have been low, the trial court stated that the shopping mall is well-lighted and located in a low-crime area. The trial judge also pointed out that the incident with Mrs. Miles happened so quickly that, even with security guards nearby, the attack and purse snatching would have occurred.

Appellant appeals the denial of her claim for damages, contending that the trial court erred as follows:

(1) In not finding that appellees had a duty to protect plaintiff from attack in light of appellees' knowledge of criminal activities at the mall and

(2) In not finding that appellees had a duty to warn plaintiff of the possibility of criminal attack because of their knowledge of criminal activities in the area.

Appellees' duty is limited to the exercise of reasonable care. Pennington v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc., 393 So.2d 360 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980). As was stated in Roberts v. Tiny Tim Thrifty Check, 367 So.2d 64, 65 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979):

"A store owner is under a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of his patrons, but he is not the insurer of their safety. Anderson v. Clements, 284 So.2d 341 (La.App. 4th Cir.1973); DeHart v. Travelers Ins. Co., 10 So.2d 597 (La.App.Orl.1942); Matranga v. Travelers Insurance Co., 55 So.2d 633 (La.App.Orl.1952). It has also been stated that a proprietor of a public place has a duty to protect his patrons from injuries at the hands of third parties when it is within his power to do so. Cooper v. Ruffino, 172 So.2d 717 (La.App. 4th Cir.1965) (emphasis added)."

The duty to protect business patrons does not extend to the unforseeable or unanticipated criminal acts of an independent third person. Pennington v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc., supra. The owner or management, however, does have a duty to protect patrons when it has knowledge, or can be imputed with knowledge, of the third person's intended conduct. See Anderson v. Clements, supra.

A police computer printout of the crimes committed at Cortana Mall was made part of the record. This printout reveals that most of these crimes occurred inside the mall and were offenses perpetrated against the store owners. ² Although there are...