Yanice Jackson v. Walmart Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia grants Walmart Inc.'s motion to dismiss a four-count negligence action arising from a third-party assault at a Colonial Heights, Virginia store. The court holds that the complaint fails to plausibly allege a duty to protect against criminal acts, gross negligence, or negligent hiring, retention, and training. Dismissal is without prejudice, but leave to amend is denied as futile based on the proposed additional allegations.

Holdings

1. Jackson failed to state premises-liability, ordinary-negligence, or negligent-security claims because her conclusory allegation that Walmart knew of prior criminal activity did not plausibly establish that Walmart had notice of a specific imminent danger or that its method of business attracted or provided a climate for criminal activity.
2. Jackson failed to state a gross-negligence claim because gross negligence includes the ordinary elements of negligence, including duty, and she did not plausibly allege that Walmart owed her a duty to protect her from the third-party assault.
3. Virginia law does not recognize negligent training as an independent cause of action, so Jackson's negligent-training theory failed to state a claim.
4. Jackson failed to state negligent-hiring and negligent-retention claims because she alleged that the third-party assailant caused her injuries, while Walmart's employees merely failed to intervene, and therefore did not allege that Walmart's employees caused her injuries.
5. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because the additional facts Jackson referenced would not plausibly establish an imminent threat, a business-created climate for crime, or causation by Walmart employees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jackson plausibly alleged that Walmart owed her a duty to protect her from a third-party criminal assault based on prior criminal activity near the store or Walmart's method of business.
2. Whether Jackson stated a gross-negligence claim when she failed to adequately plead the underlying duty required for ordinary negligence.
3. Whether Virginia recognizes an independent negligent-training cause of action.
4. Whether Jackson plausibly alleged negligent hiring or retention when the third-party assailant, rather than Walmart's employees, caused her injuries.
5. Whether the proposed additional allegations would make amendment nonfutile under Rule 15(a)(2).

Disposition

dismissed