Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc., Docket No. 75663

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
• Writing for the Court: MacKENZIE
• Citation: 379 N.W.2d 458,146 Mich.App. 23
• Parties: Willie WILLIAMS and Cleva Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CUNNINGHAM DRUG STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 146 Mich.App. 23, 379 N.W.2d 458
• Decision Date: 22 January 1986
• Docket Number: Docket No. 75663

Page 458

379 N.W.2d 458 Willie WILLIAMS and Cleva Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CUNNINGHAM DRUG STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 75663.
146 Mich.App. 23, 379 N.W.2d 458 Court of Appeals of Michigan. Submitted Dec. 11, 1984.
Decided Oct. 7, 1985.
Released for Publication Jan. 22, 1986.

[146 MICHAPP 24] David Franks, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Beverly J. White, Birmingham, and Barbier, Goulet & Petersmarck, P.C. by Thomas H. Hill, Mount Clemens, for defendant-appellee.

Before GRIBBS, P.J., and MacKENZIE and GAGE ^*, JJ.

Page 459

MacKENZIE, Judge.

On May 4, 1979, an armed robbery occurred at a Cunningham Drug Store located in a shopping center at the corner of Grand River and Oakman Boulevard in the City of Detroit. At the time of the robbery, plaintiff Willie Williams was shopping near the front of defendant's store. In the confusion following the announcement of the robbery, Mr. Williams ran out of the store directly behind the fleeing robber. Once outside the store, the robber turned and fired [146 MICHAPP 25] his gun, hitting Mr. Williams in the midsection. The record does not establish whether Williams, when shot, was still on defendant's premises; the robber was not.

As a result of the shooting, Mr. Williams and his wife filed a complaint against defendant wherein it was alleged that defendant had breached its duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its patrons. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to provide an adequate number of armed and visible security guards and, further, failed to intercede on Mr. Williams's behalf after having notice that an armed robbery was in progress. At the close of plaintiffs' proofs defendant moved for a directed verdict pursuant to GCR 1963, 515.1 on the basis that defendant had no duty to protect Williams from the unforeseeable acts of a third person. The court found that as a matter of law Mr. Williams's actions were unforeseeable and accordingly granted defendant's motion. Plaintiffs appeal as of right and contend that the trial court erred by granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict.

When reviewing the grant of a directed verdict, an appellate court must view the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, granting him every reasonable inference and resolving any conflict in the evidence in his favor. A trial court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of a defendant at the close of the plaintiffs' proofs will be reversed if the evidence, when viewed in this manner, establishes a prima facie case. Cody v. Marcel Electric Co., 71 Mich.App. 714, 717; 248 N.W.2d 663 (1976), lv. den. 399 Mich. 851 (1977); Ransford v. The Detroit Edison Co., 124 Mich.App. 537, 542, 335 N.W.2d 211 (1983).

The trial court...