Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealwill
plaintiffappealwill

Related Cases

Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So.2d 291
View Case »
Taylor v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 468 Mich. 1, 658 N.W.2d 127
View Case »
Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207, 527 N.E.2d 1235, 75 A.L.R.4th 729
View Case »
Lyles v. Jackson, 216 Va. 797, 223 S.E.2d 873
View Case »
Horizon Associates Joint Venture v. LRX, Inc., 859 So.2d 514 (Table)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc., 429 Mich. 495, 418 N.W.2d 381

Facts

On May 4, 1979, Willie Williams was shopping at a Cunningham drug store in a high crime area of Detroit. The store had a plainclothes security guard, but he was sick that day, and a substitute was not sent. During an armed robbery, Williams fled the store directly behind the robber and was shot outside. Williams filed a complaint against the store, claiming it failed to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its patrons by not providing armed security.

On May 4, 1979, plaintiff Willie Williams was shopping in a Cunningham drug store located in a high crime area of the City of Detroit. A plainclothes security guard was employed by the store, but on the day in question he was sick. Store personnel called the main office to request a substitute, but one was not sent.

Issue

Whether a store owner has a duty to provide armed, visible security guards to protect customers from the criminal acts of third parties.

The question before us in this case is whether a merchant's duty to exercise reasonable care includes providing armed, visible security guards to protect invitees from the criminal acts of third parties.

Rule

A merchant's duty of reasonable care does not extend to providing armed, visible security guards to deter criminal acts of third parties.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that a merchant's duty of reasonable care does not include providing armed, visible security guards to deter criminal acts of third parties.

Analysis

The court determined that the store's duty of reasonable care did not include the provision of armed security guards. It noted that the responsibility for police protection lies with the government, and requiring a merchant to provide such security would impose an unreasonable burden. The court emphasized that the merchant is not an insurer of the safety of invitees and cannot control the incidence of crime in the community.

However, in cases in which overriding public policy concerns arise, the court determines what constitutes reasonable care.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the store owner had no duty to provide armed security guards to protect customers from the criminal acts of third parties.

Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Who won?

Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the store had no legal obligation to provide armed security for its patrons.

We conclude as a matter of law that the duty of reasonable care a merchant owes his invitees does not extend to providing armed, visible security guards to protect customers from the criminal acts of third parties.

You must be