Protect Customers From Lunatics or Pay in Court?

On Wednesday, a Maryland jury awarded two women a combined $1.6 million in a negligence lawsuit in which they argued that Nordstrom failed to properly protect customers from a mentally ill woman armed with knives. While it seems that the verdict is a signal to businesses that they must protect customers from dangerous persons, this is in fact untrue. The duty that businesses owe their patrons is much more subtle. The Nordstrom lawsuit was based on an event in 2005 during which a woman, armed with four knives , entered the store and began attacking random shoppers. Employees failed to alert patrons or attempt an evacuation despite detailed emergency plans. At trial, the women argued that Nordstrom was negligent in that it failed to adequately protect customers despite opportunity and ability. The fact is that very few states elevate the business-patron relationship to the point where a business must protect customers from third parties. However, businesses do owe a duty of care to their patrons that requires warnings of dangerous conditions and the maintenance of general safety on the premises. Nordstrom’s employees were not required under negligence law to protect shoppers at all costs. Instead, they were required to get on the announcement system and warn shoppers that the stabber was in the store. Moreover, they likely were required to attempt to evacuate as many shoppers as possible given the situation. The real lesson here is that as a business owner, you and your employees need to take reasonable steps to protect customers even if events are out of your hands. Related Resources: Jury orders Nordstrom to pay $1.6 million to Bethesda stabbing victims (Washington Post) Specific Legal Duties (FindLaw) Property Owners’ Legal Duty to Prevent Injury (FindLaw) Jury Awards $3.2M to Woman Injured at Ikea Store (FindLaw’s Injured)

See original here:
Protect Customers From Lunatics or Pay in Court?

Twitter Follow

Follow us on

Contact Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT:  This communication or portions thereof may be considered "advertising" as defined by Section 6157(c) of the California Business and Professions Code or within the jurisdiction in which you are viewing this.  Nothing in the discussion above is intended to be a representation or guarantee about the outcome of any legal proceeding in which you may be involved.  By providing the information above in this format, Michel & Associates is not soliciting you to hire it to handle a specific legal matter you may currently have or be anticipating commencing in the future.  Notwithstanding the discussion above, you should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content on this site without seeking appropriate legal advice regarding your particular circumstances from an attorney licensed to practice law.  This communication is informational only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Michel & Associates.  Michel & Associates's attorneys are licensed to practice in California, Texas, and the District of Columbia.