Jolyn Cullum et al. v. Jan McCool et al.

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a store patron’s complaint sufficiently alleged that Wal-Mart owed a duty of care to protect another patron from a visibly intoxicated and belligerent customer whom employees ordered to leave despite knowing she was alone and would drive. Applying Tennessee’s foreseeability-and-burden balancing approach, the Court concluded that the alleged risk of harm outweighed the minimal burden of calling police or taking another reasonable protective measure. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s dismissal and remanded the case.

Holdings

1. Taking the complaint's allegations as true, Wal-Mart owed Cullum a duty to protect her from the reasonably foreseeable risk of harm posed by a belligerent, visibly intoxicated patron operating a motor vehicle in Wal-Mart's parking lot.
2. The complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a negligence claim and could not be dismissed at the pleading stage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a business owes a customer a duty to protect her from the reasonably foreseeable negligent or criminal conduct of a visibly intoxicated customer whom employees knew was alone and would operate a vehicle in the business's parking lot.
2. Whether the Cullums' complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded