McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Tennessee Supreme Court abandoned a restrictive prior rule and adopted a new balancing test to determine a business owner’s duty to protect customers from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties on their premises.
Legal Significance: This case overruled Cornpropst v. Sloan, establishing a new standard in Tennessee for business premises liability concerning third-party criminal acts, emphasizing foreseeability and a balancing of factors.
McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Dorothy McClung was abducted from the Delta Square Shopping Center parking lot, and subsequently raped and murdered. Her husband sued Wal-Mart (anchor tenant) and Delta Square (owner/operator) for negligence, alleging failure to provide adequate security despite numerous prior criminal incidents on or near the premises. Records indicated approximately 164 criminal incidents, including robberies, auto thefts, and an attempted kidnapping, in the 17 months preceding Mrs. McClung’s abduction. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, feeling bound by Cornpropst v. Sloan, which limited a business owner’s duty to situations where they knew or had reason to know criminal acts were occurring or imminently probable. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The plaintiff appealed, seeking review of the Cornpropst standard.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What duty of care do business owners and occupiers owe to customers to protect them from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties occurring on the business premises?
Reversed and remanded. The Court overruled Cornpropst v. Sloan and adopted a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
What duty of care do business owners and occupiers owe to customers to protect them from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties occurring on the business premises?
Conclusion
This landmark decision significantly altered Tennessee premises liability law by replacing a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea
Legal Rule
A business ordinarily has no duty to protect customers from third-party criminal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
Legal Analysis
The Court found the *Cornpropst* rule, requiring knowledge of an “imminent probability Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitatio
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Overturns Cornpropst v. Sloan, which required an “imminent probability of harm”