Negligence -Assault victim’s negligence claim against Walmart is dismissed

Where a woman alleged Walmart failed to take adequate measures to protect her from a criminal assault by a third party, but she failed to plead facts that it had prior knowledge of criminal activity at or near the premises, her negligence claims were dismissed.

Background

This is a four-count negligence action brought by Yanice Jackson, alleging that Walmart Inc. was aware of previous criminal activity at or near its premises and failed to take adequate measures to protect her from a criminal assault by a third party. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

Negligence

Defendant argues that Count One (premises liability/negligence) and Count Two (negligent security) should be dismissed because plaintiff’s conclusory claims that defendant had prior knowledge of criminal activity at or near the premises are not specific enough to impose negligence liability. The court agrees.

Plaintiff’s negligence claims under Counts One and Two fail because defendant does not owe plaintiff the legal duty alleged in her complaint. Plaintiff claims that defendant’s legal duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition includes defendant protecting her from a third party’s criminal assault and providing security measures at the store.

But, “[o]rdinarily, the owner or possessor of land is under no duty to protect invitees from assaults by third parties while the invitee is upon the premises.” “[A]s a matter of law — a business has no duty to prevent such criminal acts unless its method of business attracts or provides a climate for such crimes.”

An exception to this standard rule is that a business does owe a duty to protect invitees when the “previous criminal activity [in the area or on the premises] was sufficient to ‘lead a reasonable person . . . to conclude that there was an imminent danger of criminal assault’ to the plaintiff.” For such a duty to be imposed, there must be “notice of a specific danger just prior to the assault.” Opinions from the Supreme Court of
Virginia illustrate the high bar for application of this exception.

Here, the complaint alleges only generally that “Walmart was aware of prior incidents of criminal activity at or near the premises.” Thus, this case is analogous to those where Virginia courts have declined to impose the duty plaintiff advances.

Nothing in the complaint supports a plausible finding that Walmart’s “method of business attracts or provides a climate for such crimes.” Operation in an area with criminal activity, without more information about the manner in which defendant operates its business, is not enough to plausibly allege that defendant attracted such criminal activity and thereby created a duty to protect business invitees.

Further, nothing in the complaint supports a plausible inference that Walmart was aware of an imminent probability of harm to plaintiff; the facts before the court differ from cases finding sufficient allegations of such awareness. Plaintiff did not allege any facts to suggest that defendant or its employees had specific notice of an imminent attack prior to the incident. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting defendant knew the criminal third party was dangerous or had a history of assaults at the store. Counts One and Two are dismissed.

Gross negligence

Plaintiff alleges in Count Three that defendant’s actions constituted gross negligence and showed a willful and wanton disregard for public safety. Gross negligence shares the same elements as simple negligence but varies with respect to the nature of the breach.

Because plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded that defendant owed her a legal duty of protection from a third party’s criminal assault for purposes of claiming simple negligence, she necessarily fails to state a claim for gross negligence. Count Three is dismissed.

Failure to train

Plaintiff alleges in Count Four that “Walmart hired, retained, or failed to adequately train employees and security staff unfit to handle foreseeable safety threats, further endangering [her].” Construing this as either an attempted negligent training claim or a negligent hiring and/or retention claim, defendant argues that negligent training is not a recognized cause of action in Virginia and, further, that plaintiff has not alleged facts to show that defendant’s employees caused plaintiff’s injuries, nor that they posed a threat of injury to others. The court agrees and will dismiss this count — however construed — accordingly.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.

Jackson v. WalMart Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-626, March 16, 2026. EDVA at Richmond (Young). VLW 026-3-130. 11 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-130
Virginia Lawyers Weekly