Butler v. Acme Mkts., Inc. - 89 N.J. 270, 445 A.2d 1141 (1982)

Rule:

The proprietor of premises to which the public is invited for business purposes of the proprietor owes a duty of reasonable care to those who enter the premises upon that invitation to provide a reasonably safe place to do that which is within the scope of the invitation. The measure of that care has been described as due care under all the circumstances. Negligence is tested by whether the reasonably prudent person at the time and place should recognize and foresee an unreasonable risk or likelihood of harm or danger to others. If the reasonably prudent person would foresee danger resulting from another's voluntary criminal acts, the fact that another's actions are beyond defendant's control does not preclude liability. Foreseeability of the risk that criminal acts of others would cause harm is the crucial factor.

Facts:

Plaintiff Helen Butler, then in her early sixties, went out to shop for food at an Acme store located in Montclair. Plaintiff was attacked and robbed in the business’ parking lot. Plaintiff sued Acme Markets, Inc. to recover for her personal injuries and lost wages, claiming that Acme had been negligent in failing to warn and in failing to provide a safe place in which to shop and park. Acme moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The jury returned a verdict of $ 3600 for the plaintiff. It found that Acme had not exercised reasonable care, but that Acme "did not cause the crime." The trial court molded the verdict in the plaintiff's favor; the jury assented unanimously. Thereafter, the trial judge granted Acme’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered judgment in favor of Acme. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that Acme, as a business investor, had a duty to exercise reasonable care to provide customers with a reasonably safe place to shop. Therefore, the appellate court ruled that it was not unreasonable to require Acme to furnish parking facilities in high crime areas with adequate protection. Acme appealed. 

Issue:

Did Acme have a duty to exercise reasonable care to provide customers with a reasonably safe place to shop, failing which would render it liable to its patrons?  

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the appellate court's order, holding that it was for the jury to determine if the business, which was in the best position to either warn or provide adequate protection for its patrons, exercised reasonable care in performing its duty to safeguard business invitees from the criminal acts of third persons. The jury reasonably determined that, absent warnings, hiring one guard who primarily remained inside the store was an insufficient response in light of the known, repeated history of attacks on the premises. Thus, the business was liable for its failure to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its patrons.