## Facts

- Betsy Seibert visited Ranch Mart Shopping Center and parked in its subterranean garage around 3:00 p.m. on April 2, 1989.
- As Seibert and her friend retrieved purses from the car, two men approached; when Seibert screamed, one assailant shot her and both fled.
- Seibert sued the shopping center’s owner/operator, Vic Regnier Builders, Inc., alleging negligent failure to provide adequate security.
- Seibert presented evidence of criminal activity in the shopping center’s parking areas, poor lighting and physical conditions in the underground garage, and a lack of security measures (no guards, cameras, or warnings).
- Seibert offered expert testimony that the security was inadequate and that reasonable measures likely would have prevented the attack.
- For summary-judgment purposes, Seibert was treated as a business invitee.

## Issues

1. What foreseeability standard governs whether a business owner owes a duty to protect customers from third-party criminal acts in a parking area: prior similar incidents or totality of the circumstances?
2. Under the proper standard and viewing the record favorably to Seibert, was summary judgment for the owner proper on duty/foreseeability and breach?

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the totality-of-the-circumstances test to assess foreseeability of third-party criminal attacks in a business’s parking area.
- The court rejected a rule requiring prior substantially similar crimes in the same precise location as a prerequisite to duty.
- Applying the new standard, the court held Seibert presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on foreseeability, duty, and breach.
- The court reversed summary judgment for Vic Regnier Builders, Inc. and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A business owner is not an insurer of patron safety and ordinarily has no duty to provide security against third-party crime.
- A duty to take reasonable security precautions may arise when the owner can reasonably foresee a risk to customers above ordinary conditions.
- Foreseeability for third-party crimes in business parking areas is determined by the totality of the circumstances, which may include overall crime in the area, conditions of the premises (including lighting and configuration), existing security measures, and expert evidence.
- On summary judgment, courts must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant; if reasonable fact-finders could differ on conclusions from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.

## Conclusion

Kansas held that foreseeability of third-party criminal attacks in business parking areas is evaluated under a totality-of-the-circumstances test, and it reversed summary judgment because the plaintiff’s evidence could support a jury finding that the attack was reasonably foreseeable and that reasonable security measures were required.


Seibert v. Vic Regnier Builders, Inc., 253 Kan. 540, 856 P.2d 1332 (Kan. 1993)