Summary
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reviewed a district court judgment sustaining Walgreens Louisiana Company, Inc.'s peremptory exception of no cause of action in a personal injury case brought by a police officer injured while responding to a theft at Walgreens. The appellate court held that the allegations concerning foreseeable criminal activity, discontinued security measures, and reliance on police response plausibly stated negligence and gross-negligence claims under Louisiana's duty-risk framework. The judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded for discovery and further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the petition stated a cause of action for negligence or gross negligence against Walgreens based on its alleged failure to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal activity.
- Whether a merchant owes a duty of reasonable care to a law-enforcement officer summoned to the premises when the officer is injured while responding to a foreseeable criminal incident.
- Whether the alleged intentional criminal act by a third party automatically precludes negligence liability by the merchant at the pleading stage.
Holdings
- The petition stated a cause of action for negligence and gross negligence because, accepting its allegations as true, Walgreens' discontinuation of security and reliance on police response despite recurring criminal disturbances plausibly alleged a duty, breach, causation, and damages.
- A merchant's duty of reasonable care may extend to a law-enforcement officer responding to the merchant's request when the officer's safety is foreseeably affected by the merchant's operations and alleged failure to address recurring criminal risks.
- The presence of an intentional act in the causal chain does not automatically extinguish a merchant's potential negligence liability; comparative fault may allocate responsibility among the merchant, the intentional actor, and other responsible persons.
Key quotations
“The purpose of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition.” (2)
“Following Doe v. McKesson, 21-00929 (La. 3/5/22), 339 So.3d 542, Louisiana no longer applies the professional rescuer’s doctrine as a categorical bar to recovery.” (4)
“The presence of an intentional act in the causal chain does not automatically extinguish negligence liability; it invites allocation.” (6)
Factual background
Thomas Ripp, a New Orleans police officer, responded to a theft in progress at a Walgreens store and was seriously injured when the suspect violently resisted arrest. Ripp alleged that Walgreens knew of recurring criminal disturbances at the store, had previously employed private security, discontinued that security, and relied on police response despite the known risks. He alleged that Walgreens' choices negligently or grossly negligently increased the likelihood that responding officers would encounter violent confrontations.
Procedural history
Ripp filed suit for injuries sustained while attempting to arrest a shoplifter at a Walgreens store. After Walgreens filed an exception of no cause of action, Ripp amended his petition to allege gross negligence. The Civil District Court for Orleans Parish sustained Walgreens' exception, concluding that the allegations did not state a cause of action for gross negligence. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The matter is remanded for discovery and further proceedings consistent with the opinion.