PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED DOWN WHEN MALL SHOPPERS PANICKED AND FLED BECAUSE A FALLING DISPLAY SOUNDED LIKE GUNSHOTS; QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE PANIC AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE PANIC PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE THE OWNERS AND SECURITY COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the owners of a shopping mall and the mall security company did not eliminate questions of fact about whether they owed a duty to prevent harm to plaintiff, who was knocked down when shoppers panicked. Apparently security personnel were struggling with a shoplifter when a display of perfume bottles was knocked over causing a crash which apparently sounded like gunshots:

“‘Landowners, as a general rule, have a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to patrons on their property'” … . An owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need for such control … . The record demonstrates that the mall defendants and AlliedBarton [the security company] had trained employees to handle mall evacuations and active shooters, including a live drill with other employees assuming the role of panicked shoppers. Thus, the mall defendants did not eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it was foreseeable that a disturbance in the mall, like the one caused by the incident with Darby [the alleged shoplifter], could cause a dangerous panic. Furthermore, contrary to the mall defendants’ contention, they failed to establish that they had no notice or opportunity to control the panic or the crowd before it reached [the] store [where plaintiff was shopping] and allegedly ultimately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Grogan v Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 01396, Second Dept 3-10-21