You are here: / / WALMART DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER...

WALMART DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER INJURED BY ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER AFTER RESPONDING TO A THEFT AT A WALMART STORE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Walmart did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff, an off-duty police officer who was injured by another police officer after responding to a call about a theft from Walmart:

Walmart contends that it owed no duty to plaintiff and that the court thus erred in denying its motion. We agree. “Before a defendant may be held liable for negligence, it must be shown that the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff . . . ‘Absent a duty running directly to the injured person there can be no liability in damages, however careless the conduct or foreseeable the harm’ ” … . “[T]he definition of the existence and scope of an alleged tortfeasor’s duty is usually a legal, policy-laden declaration reserved for Judges to make prior to submitting anything to fact-finding or jury consideration” … , and that determination is made “by balancing factors, including the reasonable expectations of parties and society generally, the proliferation of claims, the likelihood of unlimited or insurer-like liability, disproportionate risk and reparation allocation, and public policies affecting the expansion or limitation of new channels of liability … .

… [P]rior thefts at the Walmart store do not bear a sufficient relationship to what occurred in this instance—a negligent motor vehicle accident between plaintiff and his coworker—so as to create a duty flowing from Walmart to plaintiff. …

… [A]ny alleged violation of Walmart’s internal policy did not create a duty flowing from Walmart to plaintiff. The purpose of the internal policy was to protect “the physical well-being of [s]uspects, customers and Walmart associates.” Plaintiff was an off-duty police officer responding to an alleged criminal event who never entered the store. He was not one of those covered by the goal of the policies … . Brown v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02403, Fourth Dept 5-5-23

Practice Point: To be liable for negligence, there must be a duty of care running to the plaintiff on the part of the allegedly negligent defendant. Here plaintiff, an off-duty police officer, was injured by another police officer pursuing a suspect who allegedly stole merchandise from Walmart. Walmart did not owe plaintiff a duty of care.

 

You might also like
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE MORTGAGE, THE DEATH OF THE BORROWER DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; BECAUSE THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS FOR THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE STILL OWING AND THE ACTION WAS NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
Labor Law 200 Cause of Action Requires Supervisory Control Over How Plaintiff Carries Out the Injury-Producing Work
Victim’s Statements Admissible as Excited Utterances Despite the Passage of Some Time Before the Statements Were Made
PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND AGENCY ALLEGATIONS SUFFICIENTLY PLED VICARIOUS LIABILTY FOR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE NURSING HOME DEFENDANTS FOR AN ASSAULT BY A RESIDENT ON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; THE COMPLAINT ALSO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED PUBLIC HEALTH LAW VIOLATIONS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE NEW YORK STATUTE DESIGNATING DEFENDANT A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED IF THE CALIFORNIA OFFENSE UPON WHICH THE DESIGNATION IS BASED WAS NON-VIOLENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA OFFENSE WAS VIOLENT OR NON-VIOLENT (FOURTH DEPT).
APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER SOUGHT ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT UNDER THE “CATALYST THEORY;” THE 4TH DEPARTMENT REJECTED THE CATALYST THEORY, FINDING PETITIONER WAS NOT THE PREVAILING PARTY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).
BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT PROPERLY EXPLAIN THAT... IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION, THE JUDGE CORRECTLY STRUCK INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE...