Opinion ID: 1122532
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Partial Directed Verdict

Text: Steffensen contends that the court of appeals erroneously applied a harmless error analysis after determining that the trial court should not have granted Smith's motion for a partial directed verdict. On the other hand, Smith's contends that the court of appeals erred in determining that the trial court erred in directing a partial directed verdict. At trial, Steffensen proceeded on two theories of negligence. First, she contended that Smith's failed to adequately train its employees to deter Burnett from shoplifting prior to stopping him. Specifically, Smith's employees did not use deterrence techniques detailed in Smith's own policy, including making eye contact with and greeting suspected shoplifters and periodically calling for security over the intercom. Second, Steffensen asserted that Smith's actions following the stop and detention of Burnett were negligent. She argued that Smith's endangered the safety of its customers by chasing and attempting to stop Burnett after he fled and that these actions ultimately caused her injuries. At the close of the evidence, Smith's moved the trial court for a partial directed verdict. The motion was grounded on the argument that even if its employees had been inadequately trained about the need for deterrence and failed to utilize deterrence techniques, such failure could not have been the proximate cause of Steffensen's injuries. The trial court granted Smith's motion and instructed the jury: You have heard testimony regarding events that occurred prior to the time of the stop of the shoplifter, Mr. Burnett. You are instructed that none of the actions of the Smith's employees prior to the stop and detention proximately caused plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, you must not take this testimony into consideration when deliberating and making your decision. Both the trial court and the court of appeals evaluated the conduct of Smith's employees prior to the stop and detention of Burnett as to whether their conduct could be a proximate cause of Steffensen's injuries. We need not and do not enter into a proximate cause analysis because we conclude, as a matter of law, that Smith's had no legal duty to deter Burnett from shoplifting prior to the time he reached the check-out stand. In Dwiggins v. Morgan Jewelers, 811 P.2d 182, 183 (Utah 1991), we stated that a possessor of land must exercise due care and prudence for the safety of business invitees. We recognized that a business owner also has a duty to protect its customers from criminal acts by third parties. Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344, cmt. f (1965)). However, the duty does not arise until the business owner knows, or should know, that criminal acts are likely to occur. Id. While we have not heretofore had occasion to apply these and related rules in a case involving shoplifting, other courts have done so with varying results. See Annotation, Liability of Storekeeper for Injury to Customer Arising Out of Pursuit of Shoplifter, 14 A.L.R.4th 950 (1982); Martin v. Piggly Wiggly Corp., 469 So.2d 1057 (La.Ct.App. 1985); Jones v. Lyon Stores, 82 N.C.App. 438, 346 S.E.2d 303 (1986); Passovoy v. Nordstrom, Inc., 52 Wash.App. 166, 758 P.2d 524 (1988). Most of these cases involve the issue of whether a storekeeper should have reasonably foreseen that a detained shoplifter would suddenly bolt and flee, injuring a customer in his flight from the store. See 62A Am.Jur.2d Premises Liability § 517 (1990). We have not found a case where, as here, an injured customer sued a storekeeper because the storekeeper failed to deter a suspected shoplifter, openly carrying merchandise, before he reached the check-out stand. When Canham first observed Burnett in the store, the latter was carrying beer and cigarettes which he had apparently taken from the store's shelves. Burnett did not at any time try to secrete any item. Canham suspected that he was a shoplifter solely because of the area of the store from which he was coming. The record provides no explanation why that fact would raise any suspicion except that prior shoplifters had come from that area. Without more of a basis for suspecting Burnett to be a shoplifter, it would be wholly unreasonable to charge Smith's with the duty to approach him before he reached the check-out stand and deter him from leaving the store without paying for the items. Until a person has indicated by some objective evidence that he or she does not intend to pay for items in his or her possession, such as where the person conceals the items, no duty to approach and deter can arise. It would be an onerous burden for a storekeeper to be required to approach and deter every customer who the storekeeper intuitively suspected might attempt to leave the store without paying for items which he was openly carrying toward the check-out stand. Such a burden would far exceed the duty stated in section 344, comment f of the Restatement and adopted by us in Dwiggins, i.e., no duty arises until the storekeeper knows or should know that a criminal act (like shoplifting) is likely to occur which might imperil the safety of customers (when the storekeeper attempts to apprehend and detain the suspect). See Dwiggins, 811 P.2d at 183. Steffensen relies heavily on Smith's own policy which directed that employees on the sales floor should greet and make eye contact with customers, especially those who are acting suspiciously, and to make use of the intercom system by calling for security from time to time. The calling gives the potential shoplifter an uneasy feeling that security is in the store. This argument does not aid Steffensen. As we have already noted, Canham did make eye contact with Burnett as he walked past him. Burnett knew he was being watched and got in a check-out line. Also, Burnett was not objectively acting suspiciously. Canham's suspicion that he might be a shoplifter was only a hunch because of the area of the store from which he came. More importantly, the law fixes the legal duty owed by a storekeeper to its customers, and that duty cannot be altered by higher standards prescribed by the merchant for his or her employees. In a number of cases, it has been held that a merchant's policy for apprehending and detaining suspected shoplifters is not admissible when it conflicts with applicable statutory law. Alvarado v. City of Dodge City, 238 Kan. 48, 63, 708 P.2d 174, 185 (1985) (merchant should not be penalized for establishing higher standards for its employees than applicable statutory standards); Jones v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 49 Or.App. 231, 236-37, 619 P.2d 907, 910 (1980). Similarly, the duty we adopted in Dwiggins is the standard to which Smith's is to be held.