## Facts

- A Woolco store operated by F.W. Woolworth Co. planned and advertised a “ping-pong ball drop” promotion in its back parking lot, with each ball containing a prize certificate.
- The store ran extensive advertising, drawing an estimated 4,500 people to a 300' × 350' parking lot on the morning of the event.
- Woolco hired an experienced pilot to drop 768 balls in three airplane passes; the pilot warned that he could not control precisely where the balls would land.
- Woolco placed employees on building roofs to retrieve balls landing on roofs and throw them to the crowd, but did not implement systematic crowd control or policing.
- Lona Pearl Kirby, a 70-year-old customer, came to the store with her young grandson after seeing the advertisements and entered the back parking area as the third pass began.
- As the balls fell, the crowd rushed to collect them; Kirby was knocked down and run over by members of the crowd.
- Kirby suffered injuries including a broken right hip and was transported to a hospital.
- Evidence suggested dangerous crowd behavior had occurred earlier, including testimony that someone appeared to be down on the ground after the second drop.
- Kirby sued Woolworth for negligence, including failure to control or police the crowd; a jury awarded her $52,500.
- Woolworth appealed, challenging the existence and instruction of any duty to protect Kirby from other patrons’ acts.

## Issues

1. Whether a store that stages and heavily advertises a promotion designed to attract a large crowd owes invitees a duty of reasonable care to protect them from foreseeable injuries caused by crowd behavior and other patrons’ acts.
2. Whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the store’s duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable harm from third-party conduct under the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment for Kirby.
- The court held that, given the planned mass-promotion event and foreseeability of crowd surges, Woolworth owed a duty to use reasonable care to protect invitees from foreseeable harm caused by the crowd.
- The court concluded the evidence supported the jury’s finding of negligence and causation.
- The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions describing Woolworth’s duty regarding foreseeable third-party conduct.

## Legal Principles

- A business invitee is owed reasonable care to maintain reasonably safe premises.
- A premises owner is not an insurer of safety, but must take reasonable precautions when harmful conduct of third persons is reasonably foreseeable.
- When a business’s own promotional activity intentionally draws an excited, dense crowd and increases the risk of injury, reasonable care may require crowd-control or policing measures commensurate with the foreseeable risk.
- Foreseeability may be shown by the nature of the promotion, the size and confinement of the crowd, warnings about uncontrolled distribution of prizes, and indications of prior unsafe crowd behavior.

## Conclusion

Because Woolworth’s promotion foreseeably created a dangerous crowd-surge risk and Woolworth failed to take reasonable measures to protect invitees from that risk, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the jury’s negligence verdict and damages award for Kirby.


F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Kirby, 302 So. 2d 67 (Ala. 1974)