In a perhaps unexpected ruling, a St. Louis County judge granted summary judgment in favor of several defendants responsible for a Starbucks store in a county strip mall, finding they owed no duty to the patrons as a matter of law. Vehicle collisions into storefronts are an increasingly recognized risk in the United States, with over 16,000 reported injury-related incidents each year. These incidents, which frequently result in serious injuries or fatalities, occur most often in locations where storefronts and pedestrian areas are left exposed to oncoming traffic, often exacerbated by “nose-in” parking arrangements. In response, industry experts, insurers, and property managers have recommended protective measures, such as installing barriers or bollards, to reduce the risk of harm to customers and pedestrians. Despite this awareness, protective measures are not consistently adopted, leading to preventable injuries in cases of driver error, confusion, or malfunction.
Missouri premises liability law provides a framework through which injured parties can hold property owners and managers accountable for preventable dangers on their premises, including risks posed by vehicle incursions. Under Missouri law, business owners who invite the public onto their property have a duty to maintain a safe environment and to protect patrons from foreseeable harm, including third-party negligence. Missouri courts, drawing on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344, have affirmed that this duty extends to protecting invitees from foreseeable dangers created by negligent acts of third parties. As vehicle incursions become an increasingly recognized risk in commercial settings, Missouri premises liability law has the potential to play a critical role in holding property owners accountable for implementing protective measures that address these foreseeable risks.
A recent St. Louis County Circuit Court ruling on this issue, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the property owner, investors, and one of the tenants of the strip mall in question, Starbucks, and against patrons that were injured or killed in the incident, has brought attention to this issue, one I addressed in a recent article on the Francis Scott Key Bridge disaster.
The case arises from a tragic incident on October 3, 2020, when a vehicle accidentally accelerated through the front of a Starbucks store located in The Shoppes at Price Crossing in Olivette, Missouri. The vehicle, intending to park in a marked nose-in space outside the Starbucks, jumped the curb, crossed a pedestrian-only sidewalk, and crashed through the store’s glass entrance, injuring customers inside and fatally wounding a customer, and injuring several others. The layout of the parking lot and storefront had nose-in parking directed toward the pedestrian area and the glass storefront without protective barriers, such as bollards, to guard against such accidents.
The plaintiffs, who were injured parties or family members of the deceased, argued that the defendants, the property owner, investors, and Starbucks, were aware of the foreseeable risk of vehicle incursions. They cite previous incidents at the strip center in question, including one in 2010 at the same location, and multiple similar incidents across other Starbucks locations. Despite this knowledge, and despite documents disclosed in discovery which indicated Starbucks, in 2016, authored a proposal to install protective barriers at this store, the defendants failed to implement any safety measures, leading to claims of negligence and premises liability. The trial court, however, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding insufficient evidence of a dangerous condition or duty to protect patrons from the vehicle incursion. The plaintiffs appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District (Case No ED 112785, Simmons v. Keat Properties), and now seek to reverse the judgment, contending that unresolved factual issues regarding foreseeability, duty, and breach warrant a trial.
In their appellate brief, just filed, they argue there are grounds for a reversal. The appellants argue for the reversal of the summary judgment order on several main points:
- Duty to Protect Patrons from Foreseeable Harm: The appellants argue that the respondents had a duty to protect patrons from foreseeable harm, specifically the risk of vehicle incursions. This duty is grounded in Missouri common law, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344, and the Missouri statute RSMo § 537.787, which holds business owners accountable for foreseeable third-party negligence.
- Foreseeability of Vehicle Incursions: The appellants contend that the risk of a vehicle incursion was foreseeable, based on:
- The 2010 crash into the same storefront.
- Numerous other vehicle incursions at Starbucks locations nationwide.
- Industry-wide knowledge of the risks associated with nose-in parking near storefronts, as evidenced by insurance guidelines and industry publications.
- Proposed, Unheeded Safety Measures: Starbucks proposed adding protective barriers (bollards) at the Olivette location in 2016 due to the potential risk of vehicle incursions. This proposal was not implemented due to unresolved lease negotiations, indicating the respondents’ knowledge of the risk.
- Premises Liability for Hazardous Conditions: The appellants argue that the nose-in parking design, directing vehicles toward the glass storefront without protective barriers, constituted an inherently dangerous condition. The respondents had control over the property design and layout and failed to take corrective measures to remove or mitigate this danger.
- Evidence and Policy Considerations Ignored by the Trial Court: The appellants claim that the trial court improperly limited its foreseeability analysis to one prior incident at the store, ignoring broader evidence and policy considerations that support the duty to protect patrons. They argue the trial court failed to consider the totality of circumstances, expert affidavits, and industry warnings, all of which should have prevented summary judgment.
These points collectively aim to demonstrate that material facts regarding foreseeability, duty, and breach of duty remain in dispute. Thus the case warrants a full trial rather than summary judgment.
Although summary judgment is not often granted, the trial judge in this case ruled, as a matter of law, that there was no duty, which leaves the Court of Appeals with a much lower standard of review to evaluate the decision and issue a ruling. We will provide an update once the opinion is issued, likely sometime in 2025.