Skip to Content
When Is a Business Responsible for Criminal Acts on Its Property?
By Amanda Ross, Esq.
A recent decision from Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal provides meaningful guidance for businesses evaluating their exposure to premises liability claims arising from criminal acts committed by third parties.
In Varone v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., the court affirmed the entry of final summary judgment in favor of Publix following a tragic shooting inside one of its stores. The court’s analysis reinforces long-standing principles governing duty, foreseeability, and liability under Florida law.
For business owners, property managers, and risk professionals, the decision clarifies when a legal duty may exist and when it may not.
The Threshold Issue: Duty Under Florida Negligence Law
When an alleged harm arises from the criminal acts of a third party, Florida law applies a limited framework. As a general rule, a business does not have a duty to protect invitees from the criminal acts of third parties. This rule reflects the principle that intentional criminal conduct is not ordinarily expected and, therefore, not automatically attributable to a property owner.
The Foreseeability Requirement
A duty may arise in limited circumstances, most notably where the criminal conduct is reasonably foreseeable. The inquiry is whether it was objectively reasonable to expect the specific type of danger that caused the injury.
Florida courts have consistently required plaintiffs to demonstrate that the business had actual or constructive knowledge of prior, similar criminal acts occurring on the premises.
Application of the Law in the Publix Case
In Varone, the plaintiffs argued that Publix should have anticipated and taken measures to prevent the shooting. The court rejected that argument and concluded that Publix owed no legal duty under the circumstances. Several aspects of the court’s reasoning are instructive.
Absence of Prior Similar Incidents
The record reflected only limited prior incidents at the subject store, none involving violence comparable to the shooting at issue. Without evidence of prior similar criminal conduct, the court found no basis to conclude that the event was reasonably foreseeable.
Reliance on Generalized Crime Data
The plaintiffs presented evidence of increasing active shooter incidents nationwide, as well as criminal activity at other grocery store locations. The court determined that such generalized evidence was insufficient. The foreseeability analysis must be grounded in conditions at the specific premises, not broader societal trends.
Internal Policies and Training
Publix had implemented internal safety protocols, including active shooter training. The court reaffirmed that internal policies, while relevant to operational practices, do not, in and of themselves, establish a legal duty to the public.
No Duty to Insure Against Criminal Conduct
The court emphasized that imposing liability under these circumstances would effectively require businesses to act as insurers against all criminal acts—a result Florida law does not support. As the trial court noted, a property owner is not required to take precautions against a sudden criminal attack that it has no reason to anticipate.
Practical Implications for Florida Businesses
The Varone decision reinforces several key considerations for businesses evaluating premises liability exposure:
- Foreseeability Is Location-Specific. Courts will focus on the history and conditions of the particular property, not industry-wide or national data.
- Prior Similar Incidents Are Critical. The existence—or absence—of prior similar criminal acts on the premises often informs whether the court will find a duty arises.
- Risk Assessments Should Be Documented. Maintaining accurate records of incidents and responses can be significant in defending against claims and evaluating potential exposure.
- Policies Do Not Expand Legal Duty. Internal procedures and training programs support operational readiness, but, standing alone, they do not create liability.
Bottom Line
The Fourth District’s decision in Varone v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. confirms that, under Florida law, liability for third-party criminal acts remains narrowly defined. Absent evidence of prior, similar incidents or other circumstances making the conduct reasonably foreseeable, a business will not be deemed to owe a legal duty to prevent such acts.
For business owners and operators, the decision underscores the importance of a fact-specific, risk-based approach to premises safety and liability management.