Schultz v. Elm Beverage Shoppe
1988 Ohio LEXIS 477, 533 N.E.2d 349, 40 Ohio St. 3d 326 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A store owner, operator, or agent is not liable in tort for death or serious bodily harm resulting from an armed robbery of the premises, provided that their actions are reasonable considering the urgency of the situation.
Facts:
- An armed robbery was in progress at a store owned by the appellant.
- The only individuals in the store were the clerk, David Wildes, and the armed robbers.
- A customer, the appellee, entered the store during the ongoing robbery.
- Upon seeing the customer, Wildes shouted something like, “Run, run, call the cops.”
- Following the clerk's shout, the customer was seriously injured by one of the robbers.
Procedural Posture:
- The injured customer (appellee) sued the store owner (appellant) for tort damages in the trial court.
- The store owner filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they were not liable as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the store owner.
- The customer, as appellant, appealed to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's ruling, finding that the case could proceed.
- The store owner, now the appellant, appealed to the state's highest 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:
Is a store owner liable in tort for injuries a customer sustains during an armed robbery when a store employee's actions, intended to get help, result in the customer being harmed by a robber?
Opinions:
Majority - Locher, J.
No. A store owner is not liable for injuries a customer sustains during an armed robbery if the employee's actions were reasonable given the urgent circumstances. The court reasoned that there is a strong public interest in preventing felonies, which creates a legal privilege for conduct aimed at stopping such crimes. While this privilege is limited when an action unintentionally harms an innocent third party, the actor is only liable if their act creates an unreasonable risk of harm. In determining reasonableness, the court must consider the exigency of the situation and the necessity for an almost instantaneous choice of action. Under the severe stress of an armed robbery, an employee's conduct is judged less harshly. In this case, the clerk's act of shouting for help was a reasonable response to a life-threatening, high-stress event, and therefore, the conduct was privileged, shielding the store owner from liability.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a standard of care for business owners and their employees during the commission of a violent crime on their premises. It creates a qualified privilege, holding that actions taken to thwart a felony are not a source of liability for resulting harm to third parties, so long as those actions are reasonable under the exigent circumstances. This ruling gives significant deference to individuals acting under the duress of a robbery, making it more difficult for injured bystanders to succeed in negligence claims against the business. The precedent balances the duty of care owed to customers with the public policy of encouraging crime prevention, effectively raising the bar for what constitutes an 'unreasonable' risk in such high-stakes situations.
