Throw it on the wall, see what sticks

The Court of Appeals has determined that it is permissible for a jury to conclude that a store is responsible to a customer for the criminal acts of a random third party who attacked the customer in the store parking lot.

I can’t say the Court of Appeals misapplied the law as stated for it by the Indiana Supreme Court, so maybe they are just doing their job on this one, but as a matter of policy, I think this decision stretches the line too far.

Because of procedural snafus, only the evidence designated by the store was permitted to be considered by the court. And, even with that evidence, in effect, the Court of Appeals is saying that a store’s duty to a patron is implicated by the mere fact that the patron was assaulted in the store’s parking lot, even if the person committing the assault is a complete stranger to and unconnected in any way with the store’s business. After that, it’s for the jury to decide whether the store was negligent in complying with its duty to protect its patrons from the criminal acts of third parties.

The store designated evidence to the effect that it had a pretty safe parking lot. The patron did not designate any evidence at all. And, even based on that evidence, the Court of Appeals has found that a jury could find that the store was liable for the patron’s injuries caused by the criminal acts of an unrelated third party.

(It bears mentioning that the Court of Appeals spent an awful lot of time talking about evidence that the patron attempted to but was unsuccessful in designating under the trial rules. Had this evidence been properly before the court, the proper legal determination would have been — in my mind anyway — a closer call. So, it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that this inadmissible evidence played a part in the outcome.)