Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

POSECAI v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. Case Brief

Supreme Court of Louisiana1999
752 So.2d 762 Torts Civil Procedure

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A woman robbed in a Sam’s Club parking lot sued the store for negligent security. The court found the store owed no duty to protect her because, despite crime in the area, the low number of prior similar incidents on the premises made the attack unforeseeable.

Legal Significance: This case established the “balancing test” in Louisiana for determining a business owner’s duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts. The test weighs the foreseeability and gravity of harm against the burden of providing security, emphasizing the importance of prior similar incidents.

POSECAI v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Shirley Posecai was robbed at gunpoint in the parking lot of a Sam’s Wholesale Club (“Sam’s”) during daylight hours. The assailant, who had been hiding under her car, stole jewelry valued at approximately $19,000. At the time of the robbery, Sam’s employed a security guard inside the store but had no security personnel patrolling the parking lot. Evidence presented at trial showed that in the six-and-a-half years preceding the incident, only three “predatory offenses” had occurred on Sam’s premises. Of these, only one was a random crime against a customer in the parking lot—a mugging that occurred two years prior. Another incident involved a delivery driver robbed after hours, and the third was a purse snatching related to an employee’s domestic dispute. While police testimony and expert analysis indicated that the neighborhood bordering Sam’s was a high-crime area, Sam’s itself was not considered a high-crime location. The trial court found Sam’s negligent, and the court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari to determine whether Sam’s owed a duty to protect the plaintiff.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a business owner owe a duty to provide security to protect patrons from the criminal acts of third parties when there is a very limited history of similar crimes on the premises, even if the surrounding area has a high crime rate?

No. The court reversed the lower courts’ judgments, holding that Sam’s did Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a business owner owe a duty to provide security to protect patrons from the criminal acts of third parties when there is a very limited history of similar crimes on the premises, even if the surrounding area has a high crime rate?

Conclusion

This decision establishes the balancing test as the controlling standard in Louisiana Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori

Legal Rule

A business owner's duty to protect patrons from the criminal acts of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non

Legal Analysis

The court began by formally adopting a rule that business owners have Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A business owner’s duty to protect patrons from third-party crime arises
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?