Georgia Supreme Court Considers Scope of Liability in Negligent Security Cases Involving Third-Party Criminal Activity

In a joint opinion issued by the Georgia Supreme Court on June 29, 2023, the Court weighed in on three separate premises liability cases which touch on similar principles of premises liability under Georgia law.  All three cases involve a plaintiff being shot in the parking lot of a business during the course of armed robberies carried out by third-party criminal actors.

In CVS Pharmacy LLC, v. Carmichael, S22G0527, Plaintiff James Carmichael sued CVS after he was shot and injured during an armed robbery which took place in and around his vehicle in the parking lot of a CVS location.  Plaintiff Carmichael was awarded damages by a jury, which found that CVS was ninety-five percent at fault for Carmichael’s injuries while Carmichael himself was five percent at fault.  The jury did not apportion any fault whatsoever to the shooter.  The Court of Appeals found that there was sufficient evidence which would allow a reasonable jury to find the subject crime was foreseeable, and therefore, CVS was liable.

In Welch et al. v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc., S22G0617 and Welch et al. v. Tactical Security Group, LLC, S22G0618, Plaintiff Anthony Welch was shot and killed in the parking lot of a Pappadeaux seafood restaurant during the course of another armed robbery.  Plaintiff Anthony Welch was survived by his wife, Cynthia Welch, who was also injured during the altercation.  Plaintiff Cynthia Welch then sued the Pappadeaux restaurant and the security company, Tactical Security Group, LLC, which was contracted to provide security for the restaurant and to patrol the parking lot of the restaurant.  However, in these cases, the Court of Appeals found that the shooting of the deceased Anthony Welch was not reasonably foreseeable, therefore precluding the liability of both Pappadeaux and Tactical Security Group.

In evaluating the above three cases, the Georgia Supreme Court asserted the following: that the reasonable foreseeability of a crime informs the duty owed, and that the reasonable foreseeability of a third-party criminal act is determined from the totality of the circumstances.  The Court opined that the reasonable foreseeability of third-party criminal activity occurring could be established by a blended approach considering a variety of factors.  These considerations include substantially similar prior criminal acts, the location of the premises being in a known ‘high crime’ area, and if the landowner had knowledge of a volatile situation brewing on the premises.  In keeping with the principle of totality of circumstances, the court further noted that past criminal acts only need to be similar to be considered in a totality analysis, which leaves more room for interpretation, and which also may allow plaintiffs to use a broader selection of past crimes in order to argue foreseeability.

Topic/Tags: Premise Liability