7th Circuit Affirms Business Owner’s Summary Judgment for Unforeseeable Third-Party Criminal Act
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently had occasion to consider whether a third-party criminal act was reasonably foreseeable to a private business owner such that its failure to provide security services could be considered a legally responsible proximate cause of an injury. In Scott v. Wendy’s Properties, LLC, the plaintiff was in line at a drive-thru at a fast-food restaurant in Chicago, Illinois when he was suddenly approached by two men and was shot. The entire incident lasted around twenty seconds.
The record contained evidence in the form of testimony from one of the defendant’s employees indicating that she had witnessed both a shooting and carjackings nearby (but never on the defendant’s property) from the drive-thru window. Furthermore, the evidence showed twenty-nine emergency calls for service at the defendant’s restaurant over a two-and-a-half-year period for incidents related to guns, disturbances, batteries, and EMS requests, but never a shooting. Furthermore, it was established that while the defendant did retain armed security for the subject store, armed security was never present during the overnight hours leading to the restaurant’s closing at 4:00 A.M.
The 7th Circuit applying Illinois law reviewed the issue under the umbrella of proximate causation and analyzed whether the defendant’s alleged failure to provide overnight security was a legally responsible cause for the plaintiff’s injuries. The court recognized that in the context of claims for third-party criminal acts, the analysis is centered on whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the plaintiff’s injury. The court went on to state that an injury resulting from a third-party criminal act on a business’ premises is only reasonably foreseeable when it results from the same risk presented by past occurrences. Ultimately, the court held that the evidence established in the case did not demonstrate that the past occurrences at or near the property constituted the same risk of the shooting in the case before the court. Of note to the court was the brazen and unprovoked nature of the shooting. The court in affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant noted that nothing about the condition of the premises or nature of the business increased the foreseeability of the crime and further that the defendant could not have foreseen two men entering the property with the sole intention of shooting the plaintiff.
About Carter R. Frambes
Carter is an associate in Tressler’s Litigation Practice Group. Carter concentrates his practice in the areas of employment, tort, civil rights defense and personal injury litigation. He also provides legal advice to corporate, insurance, local government and not-for-profit clients. A natural problem solver, Carter works closely with his clients to determine a cost-effective solution with a practical focus on achieving a favorable outcome. Click here to read Carter’s full attorney bio.