Florida Court Rules Retailers Not Liable for Injuries Caused by Fleeing Shoplifters

On April 12, 2024, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Wal-Mart, affirming a summary judgment in a negligence case where a patron was injured by a fleeing shoplifter. The court determined that Wal-Mart did not have a legal duty to protect the patron from such incidents. This decision aligns with previous rulings in similar cases, including Kmart Corp. v. Lentini and Graham v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

The case involved two individuals attempting to shoplift electronics from Wal-Mart. As the situation escalated, one of the shoplifters fled the scene, colliding with other shoppers and eventually hitting the plaintiff with their vehicle in the parking lot. The court found that Wal-Mart’s actions did not create a foreseeable zone of risk, thus absolving the retailer of liability.

The Fifth DCA also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Wal-Mart’s internal policies on handling shoplifters established a duty of care. The court noted that internal policies alone do not constitute legal duty, especially when they exceed what is reasonably foreseeable. Judge Makar dissented, emphasizing a business’s duty to maintain safe premises and protect customers from foreseeable harm. However, the majority opinion suggests that unless special circumstances indicate danger before a shoplifter flees, retailers are not liable for injuries caused by fleeing shoplifters.