Tort Laws And Liability Essay To Use For Practical Writing Help

Under most circumstances the grocery store would not be liable if someone is a victim of a crime near the story but not actually on the store’s property or premises. The reason for this outcome is twofold. Unless the harm is the result of a grocery store employee, for example, if an employee was told by a manager to “mug” the customer when they left, then the harm cannot be considered an intentional tort related to the store. An intentional tort is one in which the defendant (the grocery store) commits an act whose results it intends accomplish. By all accounts the grocery store has no connection to the perpetrator of the mugging and so therefore cannot be blamed for the actual act. On the other hand, the grocery store generally could not be held liable for the crime under a negligence cause of action. Negligence requires that the grocery store owe a duty to its customers to protect them from an unreasonable risk of injury or harm. In this case, while the sidewalk is adjacent to the store and the store does have a license to hold “street sales” on the sidewalk, the fact of the matter is that the sidewalk is not part of the store’s property. In fact, the sidewalk actually belongs to the shopping mall. Additionally, the mugging did not occur during one of the store’s street sales. Accordingly, it normally would have not duty to the customers’ once they leave the store or, in the event of a street sale, once they leave the area where the sale is taking place. To be sure, the grocery store is not the police, who have the primary responsibility of keeping the people safe and secure. Lastly, no ultra-hazardous or clearly dangerous activities or products related to the grocery store were involved in the muggings and so therefore no consideration of strict liability issues is necessary.
While the grocery store normally would not be liable for the crimes occurring to customers on the sidewalk adjacent to its store; the fact of the matter is, that this case is not normal. First, the mugging is not the first that has happened to a customer. Indeed, there was a pattern of muggings which have occurred on the sidewalk that the grocery store knew about for some time. The fact that it knew of the dangers means that at a minimum, the store had a duty of care to its customers. The duty of care refers to the responsibility of the grocery store to either warn customers of foreseeable harms or take steps to eliminate those harms. Clearly, the store did neither. In fact, despite knowing about the muggings, the store continued to allow is staff to use the sidewalk as a path for delivering supplies to customers’ cars as if there were no problems to worry about and that the area was safe for everyone, including its employees. The grocery store might have satisfied its duties in a number of ways. First and most basically, the store could have posted clear warnings to customers about the muggings and crime in the area, as well as stress that customers need to take all necessary precautions when they are on the sidewalk. Under such circumstances, the store would have satisfied its duty and anyone mugged on the sidewalk would only have themselves to blame. Second, in addition to posting warning about the sidewalk situation, the grocery store might also have hired security guards on the sidewalk to provide protections to its customers as well as staff delivering good to customers’ cars. Under this situation, the grocery store would have gone above and beyond the minimum satisfaction of its duty and provided complete protection from at least the foreseen issues of crime on the sidewalk, Unfortunately, the store took neither step despite having knowledge of the issue. Accordingly, the grocery store is liable, at least partly for the mugging of the customer on the sidewalk adjacent to its entrance.