McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership
1996 Tenn. LEXIS 699, 937 S.W.2d 891 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect customers from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. The existence and scope of this duty are determined by balancing the foreseeability and gravity of the potential harm against the burden on the business to protect against that harm.
Facts:
- Dorothy McClung went shopping at a Wal-Mart located in the Delta Square Shopping Center in Memphis.
- The shopping center was owned and operated by defendant Delta Square, and Wal-Mart was the anchor tenant.
- In the 17 months prior to the incident, approximately 164 criminal incidents, including robberies, auto thefts, and one attempted kidnapping on an adjacent lot, had occurred on or in the immediate vicinity of the shopping center.
- The defendants, Wal-Mart and Delta Square, did not provide any security measures, such as security guards, for the shopping center parking lot.
- On September 7, 1990, as McClung was returning to her car in the shopping center's parking lot, she was abducted at gunpoint by Joseph Harper.
- Harper subsequently raped and murdered McClung.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, the husband of Dorothy McClung, filed a negligence suit against defendants Wal-Mart and Delta Square in a Tennessee trial court.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment based on the prevailing precedent of Cornpropst v. Sloan.
- The trial court, stating it was reluctantly bound by Cornpropst, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, also holding that it was constrained by the Cornpropst precedent.
- Plaintiff (appellant) was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 have a duty to take reasonable measures to protect its customers from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties, thereby replacing a prior rule that required the business to know of an imminent probability of harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, a business has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect its customers from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties. The prior rule from Cornpropst v. Sloan, which required that a business know of an "imminent probability of harm," is obsolete and no longer provides adequate protection to customers in modern commercial settings. The court explicitly overrules Cornpropst and rejects both the rigid "prior incidents rule" and the overly broad "totality of the circumstances" test used by other jurisdictions. Instead, it adopts a balancing test that weighs the foreseeability and gravity of the harm against the burden on the business to implement protective measures. Foreseeability is the crucial factor and is determined by considering the location, nature, and extent of previous criminal activity on or near the premises. Applying this new test, the extensive history of prior crimes on and near the defendants' property made the risk of harm to customers like McClung reasonably foreseeable, thus precluding summary judgment and requiring the case to be decided by a jury.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift in Tennessee tort law, replacing the highly restrictive 'imminent harm' standard for premises liability with a modern, flexible balancing test. By explicitly overruling Cornpropst v. Sloan, the court aligns Tennessee with the majority of jurisdictions that hold businesses accountable for foreseeable third-party crimes on their property. The new balancing test establishes a precedent that makes it more likely for such cases to survive summary judgment and reach a jury, as foreseeability can now be established by a pattern of prior criminal activity in the vicinity. This places a greater responsibility on business owners to assess and respond to crime risks on and around their premises to avoid liability.
