Helms v. Harris
281 S.W.2d 770, 1955 Tex. App. LEXIS 2016 (1955)
Rule of Law:
A shopkeeper is generally not liable to a patron for injuries intentionally inflicted by a criminal following the shopkeeper's resistance to a robbery, unless the resistance was not a proximate cause of the injury, or if the act of resistance created an unreasonable risk of grave harm to innocent third parties.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Jennie V. Helms was a patron standing near the checking stand in a market operated by defendant S. D. Harris, conversing with him.
- A masked bandit approached and pointed a revolver at S. D. Harris.
- S. D. Harris initially spoke words indicating submission to the holdup.
- When the bandit momentarily glanced away, S. D. Harris grabbed the bandit’s revolver and began wrestling with him for possession.
- The bandit prevailed, and S. D. Harris dived behind the checking stand for cover.
- The bandit fired a shot at the checking stand, where S. D. Harris was concealed, then turned and ran toward the front door of the market.
- As the bandit ran toward the front door, Jennie V. Helms began running in the opposite direction, toward the rear of the establishment.
- Upon reaching the front door, the bandit turned, observed Jennie V. Helms fleeing, and fired a shot toward her, striking her in the hip.
Procedural Posture:
- Jennie V. Helms sued S. D. Harris in a trial court.
- A jury trial was held, and the jury returned special issue findings that S. D. Harris's attempt to resist the robbery was negligent and a proximate cause of Jennie V. Helms's injuries.
- The trial court rendered a judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) in favor of S. D. Harris, overturning the jury's findings.
- Jennie V. Helms appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
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 shopkeeper owe a duty of care to a patron to refrain from resisting an armed robbery, such that the shopkeeper can be held liable for injuries to the patron intentionally inflicted by the bandit after the resistance?
Opinions:
Majority - Massey, Chief Justice
No, a shopkeeper is not liable to a patron for injuries intentionally inflicted by a bandit following the shopkeeper's resistance, because the patron's injuries were not proximately caused by the resistance and the resistance did not create an unreasonable risk of grave harm. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's injury did not result from the defendant’s resistance but rather occurred after the defendant had abandoned resistance and the bandit was fleeing. The bandit's intentional act of shooting the plaintiff was motivated by fear of being identified and arrested, not by vindictiveness from the earlier struggle, thus breaking the chain of causation. The court stated that the shooting was neither a natural nor probable consequence of the defendant's resistance and was not foreseeable. Furthermore, the court emphasized that acts of self-defense or defense of property align with Texas public policy and that a person is only liable to third parties if such acts create an unreasonable risk of harm to innocent third parties. In situations where a defendant must choose between yielding (certain property loss) and resisting (reduced property loss risk but increased injury risk), the decision to resist is not negligent unless the risk to the plaintiff was substantially greater than the risk of property loss to the defendant. Given the social value of defending one's property, the court found no actionable negligence, especially since it was not shown that the defendant should have anticipated an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This case significantly defines the scope of a shopkeeper's duty to patrons during a criminal act, establishing a high bar for imposing liability when an innocent third party is injured. It clarifies that proximate causation is crucial, especially when a criminal's intentional act intervenes. The ruling reinforces the public policy favoring self-defense and property defense, suggesting that only resistance creating an objectively unreasonable and foreseeable risk of grave harm to patrons, substantially outweighing property loss, would lead to liability. This makes it difficult for injured patrons to recover damages from shopkeepers who attempt to thwart robberies.
