Down to Size: Preventing Overreaches in Premises Liability Cases

March 1, 2023 / CM Reports / Writing and Speaking

By Paul V. Esposito

We are surrounded by chain stores. Go anywhere in the country, and you’ll likely see the same stores you see at home. Makes you feel like you never left. Though chains have been around for centuries, their number has grown exponentially in recent decades.

Certainly, a chain’s size has its advantages. Wherever its customers live or go, they can count on finding a favorite store nearby. What customers need and want will likely be there. As for a chain, it can take advantage on a nationwide basis of product trends. And with its better buying power, it can lower prices and so attract new customers.

But for a chain, size can also be disadvantageous. Size creates a big footprint that can spell trouble in premises liability cases. Although the general rule is that land is assumed to be unique, the multiplicity of stores encourages generalizing among stores. So, even though differences exist, everything tends to get lumped together.

This happened in a premises liability case we recently monitored. A man lost both legs when a reckless driver’s car jumped a curb in front of a chain store. Over objection, he was allowed to discover evidence of incidents occurring up to 15 years earlier at the chain’s many stores nationwide. The court allowed discovery despite the lack of prior personal injuries and despite the difference in property conditions involved in them. A massive settlement followed.

A couple weeks later, the Kentucky Supreme Court rendered a decision that might provide help for chains fighting premises claims. It’s worth knowing. Walmart, Inc. v. Reeves, 2023 Ky. LEXIS 6 (2/16/23).


It was after midnight when Leigh Ann Reeves finished her shopping at a local Wal-Mart. After she entered her car, two men tried to rob her. They hit Leigh Ann twice before a bystander chased them away. She sued Wal-Mart for negligently failing to protect her from the assault and robbery. Leigh Ann contended that Wal-Mart should have assigned security personnel to the parking lot.

In response to Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment, Leigh Ann produced police reports and a CAP Index Crimecap Report showing crime statistics for an area. But because there were no crimes near the store so close in character and number to make the assault reasonably foreseeable, the trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeal reversed.


The Kentucky Supreme Court reinstated summary judgment. The Court applied the longstanding rule that a landowner’s duty to protect patrons arises if it knows of activities or conduct that would lead a reasonably prudent person to anticipate that a patron might be injured. But the key was that the Court applied its analysis to the property in question, not the entire chain. Leigh Ann’s best evidence from the police reports concerned two prior purse snatchings, one over 15 years old, the other eleven years later, on the premises itself. Other reported incidents were far different: disputes between people known to each other, disputes between loss prevention staff and shoplifters, or incidents started off-premises. There were no assaults. The incidents did not evidence foreseeability.

Nor did the CAP Index crime report help Leigh Ann. Though it showed higher-than-average crime statistics, including for assault and battery, for the county, it showed “no statistical information specific to Wal-Mart’s actual premises” (emphasis in original). It even showed that crime statistics covering the area of the Wal-Mart store were lower than average. Because “foreseeability is specific to the premises at issue,” the Court ruled that Wal-Mart had no duty to protect Leigh Ann from an assault and robbery in its parking lot.

Learning Point: Profitable and likely highly insured, chains are obvious targets for litigation. To best defend them from premises liability claims, make every effort to shrink their size. The focus must be kept on the premises in question, not on stores miles away. The design, layout, dimensions, grounds, and physical features may significantly differ from store to store. So, too, may the stores’ history of prior incidents. A store having no history of incidents should not be lumped with a store having them.

The groundwork must be laid during discovery. Defendants should oppose discovery of incidents not involving the property in question. This is particularly important for chains having a significant franchise component. It is unlikely that independent franchisees will know what happened at others’ stores. Defendants should oppose disclosure of incidents not sufficiently like the involved case. A parking-lot purse snatching is irrelevant to a parking-lot collision. They should also oppose accidents that are so old as to not establish foreseeability. A five-year window should be the max.

Defendants should also be prepared for extensive motion in limine practice. Before a jury hears evidence bearing on foreseeability, a court must determine whether it is similar enough to the incident to be probative. A plaintiff obtains a huge advantage just by mentioning prior incidents to a jury. Their number must be whittled down to the incidents on the property itself. At the very least, a plaintiff must be made to show a substantial similarity between properties on which similar incidents occurred.

These days, limiting the scope of evidence to the property at issue won’t be easy. But for a chain, it’s crucial to controlling the narrative and limiting liability and damages exposure.

  • Chicago

    Illinois 60603

    10 South LaSalle Street

    Chicago, Illinois 60603

    T: 312.855.1010 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Dennis D. Fitzpatrick

  • New York

    New York 10005

    28 Liberty Street 39th Floor

    New York, New York 10005

    T: 212.805.3900 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 212.805.3939 Office Managing Partner: Carl M. Perri

  • Mission Viejo

    California 92691

    27285 Las Ramblas

    Suite 200

    Mission Viejo, California 92691

    T: 949.260.3100 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 949.260.3190 Office Managing Partner: Ian R. Feldman

  • Florham Park

    New Jersey 07932

    100 Campus Drive

    Florham Park, New Jersey 07932

    T: 973.410.4130 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 973.410.4169 Office Managing Partner: Carl M. Perri

  • Michigan City

    Indiana 46360

    200 Commerce Square

    Michigan City, Indiana 46360

    T: 219.262.6106 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partners: Paige M. Neel, Kimbley A. Kearney

  • Milwaukee

    Wisconsin 53202

    250 E. Wisconsin Avenue

    Suite 1800

    Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

    T: 414.279.5525 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: James M. Weck

  • Stamford

    Connecticut 06902

    68 Southfield Avenue

    2 Stamford Landing Suite 100

    Stamford, Connecticut 06902

    T: 203.921.0303 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 212.805.3939 Office Managing Partner: Matthew J. Van Dusen

  • Tampa

    Florida 33609

    4830 West Kennedy Boulevard, One Urban Center

    Suite 600

    Tampa, Florida 33609

    T: 813.509.2578 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Dennis D. Fitzpatrick Co-Managing Partner: Kelly M. Vogt

  • San Francisco

    California 94111

    100 Pine Street

    Suite 1250

    San Francisco, California 94111

    T: 415.287.2744 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 949.260.3190 Office Managing Partner: Ian R. Feldman

  • Houston

    Texas 77019

    2929 Allen Parkway

    American General Center, Suite 200

    Houston, Texas 77019

    T: 346.229.4612 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Ramy P. Elmasri

  • Dallas

    Texas 75201

    325 N. Saint Paul Street

    Suite 3100

    Dallas, Texas 75201

    T: 469.942.8635 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Ramy P. Elmasri

  • Boca Raton

    Florida 33434

    7777 Glades Road

    Suite 405

    Boca Raton, Florida 33434

    T: 561.765.5305 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Dennis D. Fitzpatrick Co-Managing Partner: Kelly M. Vogt