Business owners owe customers the highest duty of care under premises liability law, including protection against known dangers and those dangers that could be discovered with reasonable care. A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision pushes that duty further, asking what happens when the risk begins on the premises, but the harm occurs beyond it.
In Borth v. Rite Aid, et al, a criminal assailant pursued a customer inside a Rite Aid, followed her around the store and off premises, and then attacked her a few blocks away from the store, causing severe injuries. Surveillance footage showed the attacker trailing the victim throughout the store, stopping in front of a security guard for about twelve seconds, and then leaving shortly after the customer did without having purchased anything.
The defendants argued that under traditional premises liability rules, a business does not have a legal duty to protect customers from dangers that occur outside the bounds of the property they control, so the fact that the attack occurred off the property required that the lawsuit be dismissed. The trial court did dismiss the suit initially, but Pennsylvania appellate courts disagreed. The Superior Court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the harm to the customer was foreseeable and preventable, and that the defendants may have failed to take reasonable steps to protect the customer from anticipated third party criminal conduct regardless of the location where it occurred. The Supreme Court has now declined to review that ruling, allowing negligence claims against Rite Aid and its security contractors to proceed to trial.
The courts emphasized evidence of a heightened risk of criminal activity in the area, including an internal crime risk assessment ranking the store in the highest danger category. Combined with observable warning signs, that evidence supported the possibility that Rite Aid could be liable for the customer’s harm, even if it occurred off the Rite Aid property, if the jury finds there was a foreseeable risk and an opportunity to intervene earlier.
What This Means for Businesses
This decision highlights several important considerations. First, foreseeability is key. Companies should treat crime‑risk assessments and incident histories as indicators of risks to their customers and take steps to mitigate those risks. This case also highlights the importance of proactive risk management. Clear protocols for monitoring suspicious behavior, escalating concerns, and engaging security or law enforcement before a customer leaves the premises can reduce both the likelihood of harm and subsequent exposure for civil liability.
For Pennsylvania businesses, this decision is a signal to reassess premises liability strategies and security arrangements. Preventive measures taken now may better protect customers and could also serve as legal defenses later.
If you have questions about premises liability, security protocols or risk management strategies, please contact Lindsey Cook or any member of Barley Snyder’s Litigation Practice Group.
