X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:After being shot during a robbery while working at Sam’s Food Store, Cheol Mo Jea filed a suit asserting a negligence claim against the store’s owners, Sam J. Cho and Mi Rea Cho d/b/a Sam’s Food Store (collectively, the store). The jury returned a verdict favorable to Jea, but the trial court granted the store’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict based, in part, on the ground that there was no evidence of proximate cause, and it entered a take-nothing judgment. Jea appealed from the JNOV on the grounds that: 1. the store had a duty to provide a safe workplace as a matter of law; 2. there was more than a scintilla of evidence showing the store’s negligent acts were a cause in fact of Jea’s injuries; and 3. there was more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the requisite conduct of a convenience store owner of ordinary prudence in the same or similar circumstances. HOLDING:Affirmed. Jea contends that if he had had a key to lock the door to the store from the inside, then he would have been able to lock the door, count the cash, and close the store without suffering the injury. He similarly argues that with proper exterior lighting, he would have “been more cognizant of the surroundings . . . and would have gained vital seconds of notice if he discerned a person was bent on committing criminal activity within the store and potentially injuring [him].” Likewise, Jea asserts that the presence of a second employee would have provided both a deterrent to criminals and another set of watchful eyes to warn of potential danger. However, the court finds no evidence in the record that any of those measures, individually or in combination, would have prevented either the robbery or the shooting that caused Jea’s injury. The court emphasizes that there is no empirical data, expert opinion, or other evidence that such measures have actually had any effect on preventing or reducing such crimes where they have been implemented, let alone a reasonable probability that this particular robbery or shooting would have been deterred or thwarted by using them. Because the court determines that Jea’s issues fail to demonstrate that his injury would not have occurred but for the alleged omissions by the store, the court affirms the judgment of the trial court. OPINION:Edelman, J.; Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman, JJ. CONCURRENCE:Seymore, J., concurs in result only.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.