Stewart v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.
234 Conn. 597, 662 A.2d 753, 1995 Conn. LEXIS 281 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner's negligence in providing inadequate security can be a proximate cause of a business invitee's harm, including death from an intentional criminal act by a third party, if the general type of harm was foreseeable and within the scope of the risk created by the negligence, with foreseeability proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
Facts:
- On June 6, 1988, Marion B. Javery was shopping at Bloomingdale’s department store.
- After finishing her shopping, Javery returned to her car, which was parked on the ground floor of Bloomingdale’s parking garage.
- Bernard Williams, an individual with no connection to Bloomingdale's, approached Javery from behind to rob her as she was placing her purchases in her trunk.
- When Javery resisted, Williams repeatedly stabbed her, leaving her to die on the garage floor, and then fled with her purse, packages, and watch.
- At the time of Javery’s murder, no security guard was on duty in the garage, and it was common practice for the single security guard assigned to the 985-car facility to be reassigned, leaving the garage frequently unsecured.
- The garage was dimly lit, with 300 fluorescent light fixtures inoperative, and lacked security features such as gates at entrances or full fencing on the ground level.
- The store and garage were located in a high-crime area of Stamford, with over 1000 serious crimes committed within two blocks in the ten months prior to Javery’s death.
- Prior to Javery’s attack, customers and employees had been robbed at knifepoint and assaulted in the garage when no security guard was on duty, and the garage was regularly the site of larcenies, car thefts, and vandalism.
- In 1982, Kevin Lash, the security manager for Bloomingdale’s, recommended an additional guard and full enclosure for the garage due to crime problems, but management rejected this proposal.
Procedural Posture:
- Walter A. Stewart, as administrator of the estate of Marion B. Javery, sued Federated Department Stores, Inc. in the trial court for wrongful death.
- A jury found for the plaintiff and awarded $1,507,310 in damages for the wrongful death of Marion B. Javery.
- The trial court denied Federated Department Stores, Inc.'s motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff.
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut transferred the appeal to itself pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).
- The plaintiff cross-appealed on an issue regarding recklessness, but subsequently withdrew the cross-appeal on October 13, 1994.
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 negligent property owner's failure to provide adequate security constitute a proximate cause of a business invitee's death due to an intentional criminal act by a third party, and is the owner relieved of liability if the specific nature of the crime was not previously committed on the premises, or if the plaintiff did not prove foreseeability with a 'fairly strong degree of certainty'?
Opinions:
Majority - Berdon, J.
No, the trial court did not err in its jury instructions on proximate cause, and Williams' intentional act was not a superseding intervening cause as a matter of law, thus affirming the finding that Federated Department Stores, Inc.'s negligence was a proximate cause of Javery's death. The court found that the trial court's instructions on causation, including both cause in fact (the 'but for' test) and proximate cause (the 'substantial factor' test), were adequate when read as a whole, providing the jury with sufficient guidance even without an explicit redefinition of cause in fact in the supplemental charge. The court explicitly disavowed prior language from Doe v. Manheimer that suggested a plaintiff had a heightened burden ('fairly strong degree of certainty') to prove an intentional criminal act was within the 'scope of the risk' created by the defendant's negligence, affirming that the standard of proof in civil negligence cases is a 'fair preponderance of the evidence.' Furthermore, the court upheld the instruction that liability is not contingent upon the actual type, extent, or severity of the specific criminal activity, but rather the 'general nature' of the harm. Given the history of prior knifepoint robberies and assaults in the garage, the high crime rate in the surrounding area, and the defendant's awareness of security deficiencies (including rejected recommendations for increased security), the jury reasonably could have found that the harm—Javery's robbery and murder—was within the foreseeable 'scope of the risk' created by the defendant’s negligent security. The court distinguished this case from Manheimer, where only non-violent 'criminal activity' (vagrancy) and no atypical association between overgrown vegetation and violent crime existed, by noting that the prior robberies in this case had a 'natural propensity to escalate into physical violence, including murder.'
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies Connecticut's premises liability law regarding the foreseeability of third-party criminal acts, particularly violent ones. By explicitly rejecting a heightened burden of proof for establishing that an intentional intervening act is within the 'scope of the risk,' the court solidifies the 'fair preponderance of the evidence' standard. Furthermore, its emphasis on the 'general type' of harm rather than the 'particular crime' expands the potential liability of property owners, compelling them to consider the escalation of foreseeable criminal activity when assessing security needs. This ruling provides a clearer path for victims of such crimes to seek recovery and incentivizes property owners to implement more robust security measures in areas with known crime risks.
