## Facts

- Mildred K. Harris worked at a Captain D’s restaurant operated by Shoney’s, Inc.
- The night before the shooting, Mildred told the relief manager that her husband, Ronnie Harris, had beaten and choked her, had threatened her, and that she feared him; she asked that police be called if he appeared.
- That evening, Ronnie entered the restaurant, pushed past the relief manager, confronted Mildred in the back, and yelled; he stated he was going to “get her.”
- Employees told Ronnie to leave; police were called and escorted him out. He was released after police learned the restaurant would not press charges.
- The next day, the relief manager reported the incident to the restaurant manager.
- Mildred called the manager requesting to miss her shift because she feared Ronnie would return; the request was denied, and Mildred worked her scheduled shift.
- During that shift, Ronnie entered the restaurant and shot and killed Mildred.
- There was no evidence that Ronnie had previously used a gun, that he had made a specific threat to kill Mildred at the restaurant, or that the restaurant had experienced similar prior violent incidents.
- Mildred’s father testified he had no reason to believe Ronnie would shoot Mildred.

## Issues

1. Whether the restaurant owed a duty to protect its employee from a third party’s criminal act under Alabama law governing third-party crimes on premises.
2. Whether the prior domestic violence, the prior night’s confrontation at the restaurant, and Mildred’s expressed fear made the fatal shooting sufficiently foreseeable to impose such a duty.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the restaurant.
- The court held the restaurant owed no duty to protect Mildred from the shooting because the particular criminal act was not sufficiently foreseeable as a matter of law.
- Because duty was not established, the court did not reach breach, causation, or damages.

## Legal Principles

- A premises owner or employer generally has no duty to protect another from a third party’s criminal acts absent special circumstances, such as a special relationship or sufficiently foreseeable criminal conduct.
- Foreseeability requires more than generalized fear or evidence of prior conflict; the plaintiff must show indicators making the particular type of criminal act a probability (often through prior similar incidents or specific threats).
- An employer-employee relationship alone does not impose a broad duty on the employer to protect employees from all third-party criminal acts at the workplace.

## Conclusion

The court held that, despite prior domestic abuse and a prior disturbance at the restaurant, the employee’s murder was not shown to be a foreseeable probability, so the employer had no legal duty to protect her from the spouse’s criminal act and summary judgment was proper.


Carroll v. Shoney’s, Inc., 775 So. 2d 753 (Ala. 2000)