Jacobsma v. Goldberg's Fashion Forum
1973 Ill. App. LEXIS 1907, 14 Ill. App. 3d 710, 303 N.E.2d 226 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business invitee who is injured while responding to an employee's request for assistance in stopping a shoplifter does not become a 'volunteer' but retains their invitee status. The business owes the invitee a duty of ordinary care, which is breached if the business, with prior knowledge of the specific shoplifter's criminal propensity, fails to take reasonable protective measures and exposes the invitee to an unreasonable risk of harm.
Facts:
- Three days before the incident, a man had attempted to steal clothing from the defendant store.
- On January 15, 1966, the plaintiff and his wife entered the defendant store as customers.
- A floor manager, located about 75 feet away, shouted 'Stop thief' and pointed in the direction of the plaintiff.
- A man, who was between the plaintiff and the manager, was running toward the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff grabbed the running man, causing both to fall to the floor.
- During the fall, the plaintiff landed on his left shoulder, underneath the other man, and suffered a dislocation.
- Several ladies' garments fell from under the running man's coat during the struggle.
- The man got up and successfully fled the store.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant store in the trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff.
- The defendant store (appellant) appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 business breach its duty of ordinary care to a customer when its employee makes a general call for help to stop a shoplifter, the customer responds and is injured, and the business had prior knowledge of that specific shoplifter's criminal activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Presiding Justice Burke
Yes. A business breaches its duty of ordinary care to a customer by creating an unreasonable risk of harm when its employee solicits the customer's help in stopping a known shoplifter. The plaintiff did not become a 'volunteer' by responding to the manager's cry for help; he retained his status as a business invitee. The manager's shout of 'Stop thief' was a general call for assistance that, given the circumstances, the plaintiff reasonably interpreted as a request for his help. Furthermore, the plaintiff's action was intended to benefit the defendant, which is sufficient to maintain invitee status. The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of ordinary care, which it breached. The store had actual knowledge of the specific shoplifter's prior criminal attempt, which charged it with a responsibility to protect its invitees from him. By having no security force or alarms and by soliciting a customer's help, the defendant exposed the plaintiff to an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a business invitee who intervenes in a criminal act at the behest of an employee retains their protected status and is not relegated to the lower standard of care owed to a 'volunteer.' It establishes that a general shout for help, such as 'Stop thief,' can constitute a request for assistance that maintains the invitee relationship. The ruling significantly heightens a business owner's liability by emphasizing that prior knowledge of a specific individual's criminal activity creates a specific and foreseeable duty to protect invitees from that individual. This precedent requires businesses to consider the consequences of involving customers in security matters, especially when known risks are present.
