Title: Broadus v. Chevron USA, Inc.
Citation: 677 So. 2d 199
Docket Number: 1941310
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 1996

677 So. 2d 199 (1996)
Harry BROADUS
v.
CHEVRON USA, INC., and Larry Ayres d/b/a Regency Chevron.
1941310.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 2, 1996.
Rehearing Denied April 12, 1996.
*200 L. Bratton Rainey III of Sintz, Campbell, Duke &amp; Taylor, Mobile, for Harry Broadus.
Gregory C. Buffalow and Scott A. Browning of Johnstone, Adams, Bailey, Gordon &amp; Harris, L.L.C., Mobile, for Chevron USA, Inc.
Thomas M. Galloway, Jr. and Nicholas Nagrich, Mobile, for Larry Ayres.
HOOPER, Chief Justice.
Harry Broadus sought to recover damages for tort liability based on the criminal acts of a third party. The trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendants, Chevron USA, Inc. and Larry Ayres d/b/a Regency Chevron gasoline station and store. Broadus appealed.
A shooting and robbery attempt occurred just after midnight on the morning of February 21, 1992, at Regency Chevron, a dealer-leased service station-store located at 4686 Airport Boulevard in Mobile. Broadus, a customer of the store, was rendered a permanent paraplegic by the shooting.
Broadus stated the following in his answers to interrogatories:
(C.R. at 509-10.)
Larry Ayres had leased the store premises from Chevron USA, Inc., and was doing business under the name "Regency Chevron." Chevron USA owned the premises and had remodeled them as a "foodmart" in the 1980's. Chevron USA imposed certain restrictions and regulations upon Ayres.
Chevron furnished the foodmart with all equipment and furnishings, including office furniture, shelving, coolers, cash register, signs, and decals. From time to time, Chevron inspected the premises and the operation. Chevron required that the store be open for business 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Chevron required Ayres to attend training programs, which included training about robbery prevention.
Chevron regulated the types of merchandise sold at Regency Chevron and the business that could be conducted there. Chevron was responsible for purchasing, installing, and maintaining certain equipment at the store, including robbery prevention hardware.
In 1988, Chevron implemented a foodmart security program, focusing upon robbery prevention. Under this program, Chevron performed crime risk assessments of its foodmarts to determine the likelihood of a customer or employee's being the victim of a robbery or other violent crime. Chevron also began training programs for its employees and lessees, required that certain security hardware be installed, and set in place procedures designed to prevent crime.
Chevron, through its Chevron Corporate Security Unit, required that its retail facilities be evaluated and that security recommendations be made to the Chevron Marketing Department to protect customers and employees. These recommendations were based on the risk of various crimes occurring; those risks were determined by the Security Unit. The Marketing Department had the responsibility to carry out the recommendations and was provided the necessary funding for doing so. Chevron's security manual indicates that Chevron took responsibility for good security practices.
Chevron implemented risk assessments as to each of its retail establishments nationwide to evaluate the likelihood of robbery or other crimes occurring and to implement measures to minimize that likelihood. Among such measures were improved lighting, particularly during late evening or early morning hours, certain push-button door locks, and dead bolts that could be operated by a cashier, a bullet resistant exterior at cashier locations, an exterior transaction drawer, a time-delay cash dispenser, floor safe in the back office, a view device in the back room door, locks on beer coolers, robbery prevention decals, and use of robbery training procedures, including keeping only a minimum amount of cash on hand at the cashier's desk or register.
Chevron began this program in 1988, and by 1991 it had begun assessing the implementation of its security recommendations.
In January 1990, Chevron's regional office in Atlanta received an assessment of some 20 service station/foodmarts in the Alabama-Mississippi area. The stations were rated "low," "medium," or "high" (C.R.281); the Regency Chevron station was rated "medium."
Thirteen suggested improved security measures were sent to various locations (Broadus Exhibits 67, 91, and 71); by 1990 Regency Chevron had incorporated eleven of these. (Bowers Dep. 197-199) (Toliver Dep. 225). The security assessment did not recommend any further security procedures. (Bowers Dep.) As a result of new security measures implemented by Chevron from 1988 to 1994, Chevron found that robberies dropped from 314 to 104, or about 66 percent. (Berry Dep. 119.)
There had been no shootings at Regency Chevron before the shooting that injured *202 Broadus. (Ayres Dep. 146.) Also, there had been no violent assaults there within the 12 months preceding this incident on February 21, 1992. (Ayres Dep. 156.)
The only known criminal activities at this location were a few "drive offs" (a party fills a car with gasoline and departs without paying), shoplifting, one case of criminal mischief, resulting in damage to Regency Chevron's property, and one instance of an individual's grabbing money from the cash register. (Ayres Dep. 109.) (Umfleet Dep. 37-39.)
Broadus presented no evidence of previous shootings or violent crimes occurring on the premises of Regency Chevron. Moreover, Broadus presented no crime statistics or other data to show either the frequency or the nature of prior criminal acts occurring at this station.
In Saccuzzo v. Krystal Co., 646 So. 2d 595 (Ala.1994), this Court stated the general rules regarding motions for summary judgment and claims of liability based on third-party criminal activity:
646 So. 2d  at 596-97.
In Moye v. A.G. Gaston Motels, Inc., 499 So. 2d 1368 (Ala.1986), this Court gave a detailed explanation of when this type of duty may arise:
499 So. 2d  at 1371-72.
Chevron USA and Ayres had no duty to protect Broadus from the criminal acts of a third party. Broadus presented no evidence to show that Chevron USA, or Ayres d/b/a Regency Chevron knew or should have known that Broadus was in danger of being shot by someone in Chevron's store. No "special circumstances or relationship" existed between Broadus and Chevron USA or Ayres d/b/a Regency Chevron. In some other cases noted in this opinion, the plaintiff presented evidence of an extremely high level of criminal activity at the locations *204 at which the plaintiffs had been injured, but the plaintiff did not present such evidence in this case. To the contrary, only minor criminal activity was shown to have occurred at Regency Chevron in the 12 months preceding Broadus's injury.
Broadus also argues that he was a business invitee of Chevron and Larry Ayres d/b/a Regency Chevron and argues that a "special relationship" existed between him and the defendants. As above noted, no special relationship was established by the facts of this case. No evidence suggested "special circumstances" or a "special relationship" between Broadus and Chevron USA or Ayres analogous to the relationships and circumstances that existed in Thetford v. City of Clanton, 605 So. 2d 835 (Ala.1992), and Young v. Huntsville Hospital, 595 So. 2d 1386 (Ala. 1992).
The summary judgment in favor of Chevron USA, Inc., and Larry Ayres d/b/a Regency Chevron is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
MADDOX, HOUSTON, and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
COOK, J., concurs in the result.
BUTTS, J., dissents.