Summary
This is a dissenting opinion by Judge Morial in an appeal involving whether a petition stated a cause of action for gross negligence against Walgreens after a police officer was injured responding to a robbery attempt. The dissent concludes that Walgreens did not owe the officer a duty to protect against the criminal acts of a third party because the petition alleged no affirmative conduct, collaboration, or special knowledge creating or magnifying the risk. It relies on Louisiana professional-rescuer and proprietor-duty precedents and would affirm dismissal under the exception of no cause of action.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the petition stated a cause of action for gross negligence against Walgreens based on its alleged failure to maintain security and its summoning of police during a robbery or shoplifting incident.
- Whether Walgreens owed a police officer a duty to protect him from criminal acts of third persons after summoning police to its premises.
- Whether the trial court's ruling on the exception of no cause of action was properly reviewed de novo.
Holdings
- In the dissent's view, the petition failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege facts showing that Walgreens owed Officer Ripp a duty to protect him from the criminal conduct of a third person or that Walgreens' conduct was the cause-in-fact of his injuries.
- In the dissent's view, Walgreens did not owe Officer Ripp a special duty to protect him from the actions of the suspected shoplifter merely because Walgreens summoned police.
- An appellate court reviews a ruling on an exception of no cause of action de novo and determines whether the petition's factual allegations, assumed true, establish a legally cognizable remedy.
Key quotations
“A proprietor who summons the police as part of the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees does not then assume a further special duty to protect police officer from the actions of patrons on the premises.”
“If such a duty were recognized by the courts, the proprietors would be reluctant to summon police to their premises when needed because of fear of liability resulting from injury to the officers by third parties.”
Factual background
Walgreens summoned police to its establishment during an attempted robbery or shoplifting incident. Officer Thomas D. Ripp was assaulted and alleged that Walgreens' gross negligence, including failure to maintain security in a high-crime area, caused his injuries. The dissent emphasized that the petition did not allege affirmative conduct by Walgreens that created or magnified the risk, collaboration with the shoplifter, or special knowledge of the shoplifter's propensity for violence.
Procedural history
Officer Thomas D. Ripp alleged that Walgreens was grossly negligent in failing to maintain security at its establishment in a high-crime area and that he was injured after Walgreens summoned police during an attempted robbery or shoplifting incident. The trial court sustained Ripp's cause of action. The majority reversed and remanded, while Judge Morial dissented and would affirm the trial court's dismissal or sustaining of the exception of no cause of action.
Remand instructions
The majority disposition was to reverse and remand. Judge Morial's dissent would instead uphold the trial court's dismissal or sustaining of the exception of no cause of action.