Torres v Frank and Sal, LLC
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability and common-law negligence involving whether a grocery market could be held liable for injuries caused by a third party after a store employee handed that third party a knife.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied Frank and Sal, LLC's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying summary judgment and granted Frank and Sal, LLC's motion dismissing the complaint against it.
The appellate court held that Frank and Sal, LLC established that it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff because it had neither sufficient authority or ability to control William Volkes after he left the store nor a special relationship with the plaintiff requiring protection from Volkes's conduct.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that he was stabbed by William Volkes after trying to recover his girlfriend's cell phone from him. After the plaintiff got the phone back, Volkes allegedly ran about a block to Frank and Sal, LLC, a grocery market where he was a regular customer. Inside the market, Volkes allegedly asked a deli employee for a knife. The employee, recognizing Volkes as a regular customer and without asking why he wanted it, allegedly gave him a boning knife from behind the deli counter. Volkes then allegedly left the store, returned to the plaintiff, and stabbed him. The plaintiff sued, claiming Frank and Sal, LLC was negligent.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied Frank and Sal, LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, allowing the negligence claim against the store to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and granted summary judgment to Frank and Sal, LLC. The court held that negligence requires a duty, breach, and proximate cause, and that, as a general rule, a defendant has no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from harming others absent a qualifying relationship. Frank and Sal, LLC showed that it lacked sufficient authority and ability to control Volkes once he left the premises and had no special relationship with the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces New York's rule that liability for the criminal acts of a third party generally does not attach unless the defendant had actual control over the tortfeasor or a special relationship with the injured person creating a duty of protection. Even where a store employee allegedly provided the instrumentality used in the assault, the absence of control over the assailant after he left the premises and the absence of a special relationship with the victim defeated the negligence claim.
A business is not automatically liable when a third party uses an item obtained on the premises to injure someone elsewhere; without a duty arising from control over the assailant or a special relationship with the victim, a negligence claim will fail.