Opinion ID: 1193381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alarms

Text: Plaintiff charges that defendant was negligent in failing to provide alarms to protect its patrons and discourage the commission of crimes in the store. We are at a loss to understand the exact nature of this complaint. A circuit judge denied defendant's motion to make this specification more definite and certain, but we have no record of the oral argument on the motion. There is nothing in plaintiff's briefs to enlighten as to just what it is of which plaintiff complains in this particular. The only references in the record to alarms is found in the discovery depositions of defendant's store managers, Davis and Hough, which tell us that there was a burglar alarm system connected to the safe (near the front windows of the store) and on the second floor (connected to a private security company), and that there was some sort of fire escape alarm on the back door of the store. Our imagination is not sufficiently fertile to conjure from this exiguous foundation just what kind of alarms should have been provided and how their presence would have protected plaintiff from these injuries to person and property. As a result, we are at a loss to find a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the absence of alarms.