MITCHELL V. ARCHIBALD & KENDALL, INC.
573 F.2d 429 (7th Cir. 1978)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over liability for a robbery. Mitchell (Ps) appealed from a decision to dismiss their tort action against Archibald (D) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Ps alleged that D breached its duty when it failed to protect them from the criminal acts of third parties on or near D's premises.
FACTS: Mitchell (P) sued Archibald & Kendall, Inc. (D) because he was robbed at gunpoint when a delivery truck P was driving was told to wait alongside D's building on public land before unloading. P was shot with a 12-gauge shotgun from three feet and suffered permanent injuries. Prior to the incident against P, there were repeated occasions when D's employees had experienced various criminal acts; just three weeks earlier an armed robbery was perpetrated against another truck driver while parked on D's premises waiting to make a delivery just as P did. P claimed D knew or should have known of the risk of criminal attack and that D had violated a number of duties; the duty to exercise ordinary care to make its premises safe, the duty to provide a safe means of ingress and egress from the facilities, the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect P from known dangers, the duty to notify P of the dangers, the duty to keep its premises and the immediate adjacent areas reasonably well policed. The trial court dismissed the complaint for a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free
samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment