Lexplug logoLexplug

Colón v. Supermercados Grande

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
166 P.R. Dec. 796 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A commercial establishment, regardless of its size or classification, has a duty to provide reasonable security measures to protect its patrons from the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. This duty arises from the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the business and the history of criminal activity on or near the premises.


Facts:

  • On November 29, 1997, Efraín Santiago Nadal was waiting in the Supermercado Grande parking lot in Santa Isabel.
  • Two armed men attempted to carjack Santiago Nadal, striking him in the head and shooting him multiple times, which resulted in severe injuries.
  • At the time of the attack, Supermercado Grande had full control of its parking lot, which lacked security personnel and had inadequate lighting.
  • The town of Santa Isabel was experiencing a high level of criminal activity, a fact known to Supermercado Grande.
  • In the ten months prior to the incident, eight motor vehicle thefts had occurred on or near the supermarket's premises, five of which were in its parking lot.
  • Just 47 days before the attack on Santiago Nadal, another customer was the victim of a carjacking in the same parking lot and reported the incident to supermarket staff.

Procedural Posture:

  • Efraín Santiago Nadal sued Supermercados Grande in the Court of First Instance (trial court) for damages arising from negligence.
  • The Court of First Instance found in favor of Santiago Nadal and awarded him $250,000 in damages.
  • Supermercado Grande, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), arguing it had no duty of care because it was not a 'regional shopping center'.
  • Santiago Nadal, as appellant, also filed a separate appeal arguing the trial court should have found Supermercado Grande's defense to be reckless.
  • The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and reversed the trial court's decision, ruling in favor of Supermercado Grande.
  • Efraín Santiago Nadal, as appellant, appealed the intermediate appellate court's decision to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a commercial establishment that is not a 'regional shopping center' have a legal duty to provide reasonable security measures to protect its customers from the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties on its premises?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Rebollo López

Yes. A commercial establishment's duty to provide reasonable security is not limited to 'regional shopping centers' but extends to any business where criminal acts against patrons are foreseeable. The court rejected the argument that its prior holding in J.A.D.M. v. Centro Com. Plaza Carolina granted immunity to smaller businesses; that case merely addressed the specific facts before it and did not create a blanket rule based on a business's size. The proper analysis depends on the totality of the circumstances. Here, the attack was foreseeable given the high crime rate in the area and the specific history of prior car thefts and a carjacking in the supermarket's own parking lot, of which the business had actual knowledge. Supermercado Grande's complete failure to provide any security measures, such as guards or adequate lighting, constituted a negligent omission that was the proximate cause of Santiago Nadal's injuries, as such measures would likely have served as a deterrent.


Concurring - Justice Rodríguez Rodríguez

Concurred with the result without a written opinion.



Analysis:

This decision significantly broadens the scope of premises liability in Puerto Rico for third-party criminal acts. By rejecting a rigid distinction based on business size (e.g., 'regional shopping center'), the court established that foreseeability is the central element in determining a business owner's duty to provide security. The ruling shifts the focus to a flexible, fact-based 'totality of the circumstances' test, compelling all commercial establishments to assess risks based on prior incidents and local crime data. This precedent makes it easier for plaintiffs to bring negligence claims against a wider range of businesses and imposes a greater burden on property owners to proactively implement reasonable security measures.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Colón v. Supermercados Grande (2006) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Colón v. Supermercados Grande