The plaintiff Sharon Glenn went to the UPS store to discuss shipping a large package. She claims to have placed her purse and an envelope with $600 in cash on the counter. After receiving a quote to ship the package from the UPS clerk, she picked up her purse but accidentally left the envelope on the counter. After walking 4 blocks, she realized she left the envelope on the counter and ran back to the store but the envelope was gone. Plaintiff requested that the UPS store review its security camera to find out who took her envelope but the camera was not working. In Glenn v. Duroseau, 2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2864 (App. Div. Dec. 10, 2015), the plaintiff claimed that the defendant UPS owner was liable to her for failing to have a functioning security camera.
The plaintiff contended that the UPS clerk must have taken her money. However, there was insufficient proof of how long it took plaintiff to walk the 4 blocks or how many people were in and out of the UPS store during that time period.
Nevertheless, the trial court judge found that the UPS store owner was negligent in not maintaining a functioning security camera which would have established who actually took the money. However, the Appellate Division held that such an extension of a business owner’s duty to a patron “is untethered to any precedential or statutory authority.”
The Court noted that a proprietor does owe a duty to protect patrons from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties occurring on their premises. Foreseeability is the crucial element in determining whether such a duty should be imposed on an alleged tortfeasor. Here, the UPS owner had never experienced a similar theft, nor was he aware of his malfunctioning security camera. Hence, the Appellate Division found no basis to conclude that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain his security system and reversed the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff.
