Errico v. Southland Corp.
1993 Minn. App. LEXIS 1207, 1993 WL 513601, 509 N.W.2d 585 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The ordinary merchant-customer relationship at a convenience store does not constitute a "special relationship" that imposes a legal duty upon the business owner to protect customers from the criminal acts of third parties on its premises.
Facts:
- After midnight on June 21, 1989, Juanita Donna Errico and a friend went to a 24-hour convenience store owned by Southland Corporation.
- Errico made a purchase and then went outside to use a payphone in the store's parking lot.
- While walking back to her car, Errico saw her friend being attacked by an unidentified woman.
- As Errico tried to drive away, she was pulled from her car and assaulted for approximately ten minutes by three unidentified men and one woman.
- Several Southland employees watched the assault from inside the store but did not call the police or otherwise intervene.
- One employee allegedly locked the store's front door during the attack.
- After the assailants fled, Errico pursued them in her car rather than seeking assistance from the store employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Juanita Donna Errico filed a negligence lawsuit against Southland Corporation and its employees in a Minnesota district court (trial court).
- Southland filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no legal duty to protect Errico from her assailants.
- The district court granted Southland's motion for summary judgment, concluding that no special relationship existed that would create such a duty.
- Errico, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
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 special relationship exist between a convenience store operator and a customer that imposes a duty on the store to protect the customer from criminal acts by third parties in its parking lot?
Opinions:
Majority - Harold W. Schultz, Acting Judge
No. A special relationship sufficient to impose a duty to protect does not exist between a convenience store and its customer. A defendant generally has no duty to control a third person's conduct to prevent harm to another unless a special relationship exists. The court found that a mere merchant-customer relationship is not enough to establish such a duty, distinguishing the open, well-lit convenience store parking lot from the unique, crime-conducive environment of a parking ramp as decided in Erickson v. Curtis Inv. Co. Public policy considerations weigh against imposing this duty, as crime prevention is a government function, the standard of care would be unascertainable, and the cost of security could be prohibitive. To impose such a duty would unreasonably require a private business to provide police protection superior to that of the surrounding neighborhood.
Dissenting - Davies, Judge
Yes. A special relationship existed that imposed a duty on Southland to respond reasonably to the criminal activity. By inviting Errico as a customer onto its premises, Southland created a special relationship that gave rise to a minimal duty of care. This duty did not require Southland to provide security guards, but at a minimum, it required its employees to take the simple, cost-free action of calling 911 upon witnessing a violent crime on its property. The employees' failure to act, instead choosing to watch the assault, constituted a breach of this minimal duty, and the question of whether this breach caused Errico's injuries should be decided by a jury.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of a business owner's duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts under Minnesota law. It clarifies that for a 'special relationship' to exist, the physical characteristics of the business premises must present a unique or particular opportunity for crime, beyond being located in a high-crime area. The ruling reinforces the principle that crime prevention is primarily a governmental function and shows the court's reluctance to shift this burden to the private sector. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to hold businesses liable for random criminal attacks unless the business's environment is analogous to uniquely hazardous locations like the enclosed parking ramp in Erickson.
