Pa. Superior Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Finding Fact Issues on Store’s Duty to Anticipate Off-Premises Assault
The plaintiff was beaten and robbed a block away from the defendant’s store. Prior to the incident, the plaintiff and the assailant were both in the store. Video footage showed the assailant speak with the plaintiff while inside the store, appear to follow her around, and exit the store without purchasing anything. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.
On appeal, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s determination that the defendant’s duty to protect its invitees did not extend to an area beyond its parking lot. However, the court held that whether the defendant should have anticipated or foreseen the danger of an attack was a disputed issue.
The Superior Court reasoned that while the plaintiff was no longer on the defendant’s property when the attack occurred, it was not entirely clear whether the defendant’s precautions were reasonable or sufficient under the circumstances. The court noted that prior to the attack, the store was evaluated to have a high risk of crime. The court held that there were genuine issues of material fact as whether the defendant breached a duty to adequately police the premises and whether the claimed breach was a substantial factor in causing the attack.
The court also held that there appeared to be questions of lack of security oversight and a failure to comply with agreed-upon procedures and protocols. As such, the Superior Court reversed the order granting summary judgment and remanded the case.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.