The Kroger Co., et al. v. Knox


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-01008-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2009-TS-01008-SCT ; 2009-CA-01008-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-28-2012
Opinion Author: Dickinson, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Duty to invitee - Breach of duty - Dangerous condition - Actual knowledge - Atmosphere of violence
Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Lamar and Pierce, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, C.J., and Randolph, J.
Dissenting Author : King, J.
Dissent Joined By : Kitchens and Chandler, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-10-2009
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Winston Kidd
Disposition: The trial court denied a motion for directed verdict, and the jury returned a verdict of $2,500,000.
Case Number: 251-07-856CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: The Kroger Co. and Kroger Limited Partnership I




LEANN W. NEALEY DONNA BROWN JACOBS WILLIAM O. LUCKETT, JR. MARY LESLIE DAVIS



 

Appellee: Linda Knox JAMES ASHLEY OGDEN JAMES W. SMITH, JR.  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Personal injury - Duty to invitee - Breach of duty - Dangerous condition - Actual knowledge - Atmosphere of violence

Summary of the Facts: Isaiah Robinson accosted Linda Knox in a Kroger parking lot, punched her several times, and took her purse. Claiming Kroger had a duty to place an armed guard in its parking lot and that its breach of that duty led to her injuries, Knox sued The Kroger Company and Kroger Limited Partnership I, and several other defendants, including Robinson and Securitas Security Services, USA, Inc., a private security company that provided security services to Kroger as an independent contractor. After Knox concluded her case-in-chief, Kroger moved for a directed verdict and argued that the evidence was insufficient to support Knox’s claim. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury returned a verdict of $2,500,000. Kroger appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Kroger argues that the trial court erred by denying Kroger’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. To recover on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant breached a particular duty owed to the plaintiff, and that the breach of duty proximately caused damages. While it is true that those in control of real property have a duty, if reasonably possible, to remedy most dangerous conditions on their property and to warn of those they cannot eliminate, that duty presupposes the defendant knows, or should know, of the dangerous condition. Because Knox does not allege Kroger had actual knowledge of Robinson’s violent nature, she depends solely on her assertion that Kroger was aware of an atmosphere of violence on its premises. In an attempt to establish Kroger’s knowledge of an atmosphere of violence in its parking lot, Knox presented evidence of four Kroger incident reports involving three purse snatchings and one stolen purse, over the course of three years. Knox also presented evidence that one of Kroger’s managers was aware of crime throughout the I-55 corridor. As a matter of law – in the context of Kroger’s more than three million customer visits over the course of three years – four incidences of criminal activity are wholly insufficient to establish an atmosphere of violence on Kroger’s parking lot. And imposing liability without notice of an atmosphere of violence would be nothing short of strict liability for injuries caused by the criminal activity of third parties. It is well settled that a property owner is not an insurer of an invitee’s safety, but owes only a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from reasonably foreseeable injuries at the hands of another. The fact that crime occurs throughout the I-55 corridor – absent sufficient evidence of criminal activity on the defendant’s property, or near enough to pose a danger to Kroger’s customers – is also insufficient. Although there was testimony about “calls for service” involving ten possible additional crimes against the person, Knox presented no police reports or other evidence verifying the accuracy of the calls. Because Kroger was not on notice of an atmosphere of violence on its premises, it had no duty to place an armed security guard in its parking lot. And in the absence of this duty, there is no need to address the remaining elements of the negligence action. Therefore, judgment is reversed and rendered for Kroger.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court