POSECAI v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. 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: A woman robbed in a Sam’s Club parking lot sued the store for negligent security. The court found the store owed no duty to protect her because, despite crime in the area, the low number of prior similar incidents on the premises made the attack unforeseeable.
Legal Significance: This case established the “balancing test” in Louisiana for determining a business owner’s duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts. The test weighs the foreseeability and gravity of harm against the burden of providing security, emphasizing the importance of prior similar incidents.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Shirley Posecai was robbed at gunpoint in the parking lot of a Sam’s Wholesale Club (“Sam’s”) during daylight hours. The assailant, who had been hiding under her car, stole jewelry valued at approximately $19,000. At the time of the robbery, Sam’s employed a security guard inside the store but had no security personnel patrolling the parking lot. Evidence presented at trial showed that in the six-and-a-half years preceding the incident, only three “predatory offenses” had occurred on Sam’s premises. Of these, only one was a random crime against a customer in the parking lot—a mugging that occurred two years prior. Another incident involved a delivery driver robbed after hours, and the third was a purse snatching related to an employee’s domestic dispute. While police testimony and expert analysis indicated that the neighborhood bordering Sam’s was a high-crime area, Sam’s itself was not considered a high-crime location. The trial court found Sam’s negligent, and the court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari to determine whether Sam’s owed a duty to protect the plaintiff.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a business owner owe a duty to provide security to protect patrons from the criminal acts of third parties when there is a very limited history of similar crimes on the premises, even if the surrounding area has a high crime rate?
No. The court reversed the lower courts’ judgments, holding that Sam’s did 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 vel
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
Does a business owner owe a duty to provide security to protect patrons from the criminal acts of third parties when there is a very limited history of similar crimes on the premises, even if the surrounding area has a high crime rate?
Conclusion
This decision establishes the balancing test as the controlling standard in Louisiana 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 labori
Legal Rule
A business owner's duty to protect patrons from the criminal acts of 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
Legal Analysis
The court began by formally adopting a rule that business owners have 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A business owner’s duty to protect patrons from third-party crime arises