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
- 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.
- 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.