Parham v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 17 July 1981 |
| Citation | 402 So.2d 884 |
| Parties | Shirley D. PARHAM v. Tom TAYLOR, d/b/a Taylor's Beverages. 79-699. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joseph T. Conwell of Conwell & Conwell, Huntsville, for appellant.
Daniel C. Boswell, Huntsville, for appellee.
This case involves an action brought by an employee against her employer alleging that the employer failed to provide her with a safe place to work in that she was not adequately protected from the criminal acts of third persons. Summary judgment was granted for the defendant.
Shirley Parham was employed by Tom Taylor, d/b/a Taylor's Beverages to serve as a clerk in his store which sold alcoholic beverages. The store is located in a lighted area on Memorial Parkway in the City of Huntsville, Alabama. Memorial Parkway is a main thoroughfare which is patrolled by the Huntsville police.
Shortly after 10:00 p. m. on May 4, 1979, a robbery occurred at Taylor's Beverages and Shirley Parham was shot. She stated that she was standing by the beer cooler when a black male grabbed her by the arm and turned her around, and told her to give him the money. She told the offender, "You're kidding, there is a police car across the street." The offender shot her.
The affidavit of Judy Madison, a co-employee, was to the effect that she had discussed a previous robbery at Taylor's Beverages with Shirley Parham and they had been instructed by the owner what to do in the event an attempted robbery occurred. It is not clear from the record exactly how many previous robberies or attempted robberies had occurred at this place of business.
The owner of Taylor's Beverages stated in his affidavit that he had instructed Shirley concerning attempted robberies. He stated the instructions were to keep the cash register "thinned at all times" and to remain alert. Should anything suspicious occur, she should call the police. He told her not to resist, but to do as the robber requested.
In Count I of her complaint she alleged that as a proximate result of Taylor's failure to provide a safe place to work she sustained injuries for which she claimed damages in the amount of $500,000.00. In Count II, Parham alleged she was due to be compensated for her injuries under the Workmen's Compensation laws. The trial judge granted Taylor's motion for summary judgment as to Count II when Taylor established by way of affidavit that he employed less than three persons and was therefore not subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Parham then amended her complaint to include Count III wherein she alleged that
(b)y hiring said plaintiff, the defendant entered into an employment contract wherein he assumed duties of an employer as such under Alabama law and as such assumed the protection of his employees from adverse, criminal or civil action.
She further alleged that Taylor breached this contract when he failed to provide either a safe place to work or adequate means for Parham to protect herself from attack. Taylor moved for and was granted summary judgment on Count I and III.
We note at the outset that Parham's brief is addressed solely to the question of Taylor's liability under a negligence theory. Since Parham has not questioned the trial judge's grant of summary judgment on her contract claim, we need not address that issue.
Outside of the Workmen's Compensation law this case seems to be one of first impression. Kelly v. Dupree, 376 So.2d 1371 (Ala.1979).
As a general rule, in the absence of special relationships or circumstances, a private person has no duty to protect another from a criminal attack by a third person. 10 A.L.R.3d 619.
Some cases recognize a special circumstance in instances of employment. See the leading case of Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U.S. 459, 68 S.Ct. 140; 92 L.Ed. 73 (1947).
In Thoni Oil Magic Benzol Gas Stations, Inc. v. Johnson, 488 S.W.2d 355 (Ky.1972), the Kentucky Court of Appeals was presented with a situation very similar to the one presently before this Court. In that case, a gas station attendant was robbed and killed while working at night at a station located on a principal city thoroughfare patrolled hourly by city police. Addressing the issue of liability, the Court stated:
In the ordinary situation we indulge the assumption that people will obey the law rather than violate it. Thus,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wainscott v. Centura Health Corp.
...‘In the ordinary situation we indulge the assumption that people will obey the law rather than violate it.’ ” (quoting Parham v. Taylor, 402 So.2d 884, 886 (Ala.1981) )); Nat'l Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Matherne, 987 S.W.2d 145, 149 (Tex.Ct.App.1999) ( “[T]here is no duty to inform others......
-
Hail v. Regency Terrace Owners Ass'n
...City National Bank of Birmingham, 424 So.2d 594 (Ala.1982); Gaskin v. Republic Steel Corp., 420 So.2d 37 (Ala. 1982); and Parham v. Taylor, 402 So.2d 884 (Ala.1981). "`Special circumstances' exist only when the defendant `knew or had reason to know of a probability of conduct by third perso......
-
Blake v. John Skidmore Truck Stop, Inc.
...jury's finding that inadequate employer security was one cause of ... [the victim's] death." Id. at 461. 15 Similarly, in Parham v. Taylor, 402 So.2d 884 (Ala.1981), although affirming the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the employer under the facts of the case, the Alab......
-
Patrick v. Union State Bank
...Latham v. Aronov Realty Co., 435 So.2d 209 (Ala.1983); Berdeaux v. City National Bank, 424 So.2d 594 (Ala.1982); Parham v. Taylor, 402 So.2d 884 (Ala.1981) (citing 10 A.L.R.3d 619). 2 The rule has also been applied in cases in which a plaintiff sought to impose liability upon a psychiatrist......