Legal Insights

“Take It Outside!” Isn’t Going to Cut it Anymore: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Declines to Weigh-in on Retailer's Expanded Duty to Protect Customers After Leaving the Premises
 

July 23, 2026
By: Joel H. Feigenbaum and Marc A. Primelo

Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 689, 2026 WL 1002920, declined to consider the appeal of a mid-level appellate court decision, which may serve as a conduit to expand commercial enterprises’ duty to protect their customers from violence well after they leave. Last year, the Superior Court reversed a trial court ruling and held that a retail store may be liable for the criminal actions of a third party that occur blocks away from its establishment. In Borth v. Alpha Century Sec., Inc., et al., 346 A.3d 326 (Pa. Super. 2025), the Superior Court, in a non-precedential opinion, found that a retailer’s duty to protect the safety of its patrons may extend after shoppers walk out the front door and beyond the parking lot at least in instances where store personnel or private security had reason to know of potential future criminal transgressions.

In Borth, the plaintiff alleged that she was “stalked” by another customer, Geiger, while she was a patron of a West Philadelphia convenience store and was followed by him for several blocks before being beaten and robbed. The plaintiff sued the store and its independently contracted security company, alleging that the defendants violated their duties to her as a business invitee. The trial court, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, had granted summary judgment in favor of the merchant and its security company, finding that the defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff when she was attacked off-premises.  

Insufficient Training, Supervision, and Preparedness 

The Superior Court’s decision to reverse the determination of the trial court rested primarily upon the testimony of the security guard on duty while the plaintiff and her attacker, Geiger, were inside the store, finding that his observations elevated the defendants’ duty toward the plaintiff. The guard testified:

• At some point during his shift, the guard “abandoned” his post to go to his car for several minutes while the plaintiff and/or her assailant may have been inside the store;
• He received no formal training for his position; and, critically,
• He recalled Geiger’s behavior to be “bizarre and suspicious”, including leaving the store without making a purchase, and did nothing.  

The appellate court also considered that prior to this incident, the retailer’s corporate managers identified this store as being in a high-crime area per its “Crimecast Evaluation”. Two security experts retained by the plaintiff also opined that the store and its security contractor should have taken reasonable precaution against harmful third parties whose conduct might be reasonably anticipated. The guard testified, “What happens outside in the parking lot, we really couldn’t do nothing, as far as like, incidents or whatever. Because that’s outside of the store . . . So, like once they basically got outside in the parking lot, we couldn’t do nothing. That’s what I was told.”

Expect the Reasonably Expected

Reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, the Superior Court found that while the store’s general duty to protect the plaintiff did not extend beyond the parking lot, whether the defendants should have anticipated or foreseen the danger of an attack under the circumstances is a matter of dispute and should be left to a jury. Citing Paliometros v. Loyola, 932 A.2d 128 (Pa. Super. 2007), a case involving an innkeeper’s duty to prevent sexual assaults, the Court emphasized that “One who invites all may reasonably expect that all might not behave, and bears responsibility for injury that follows the absence of reasonable precaution against that common expectation.” Ultimately, the appellate court held, “although the [plaintiff] was no longer on [the store’s] property when Geiger attacked her, it is not entirely clear whether [the store’s] precautions or the Security Defendants’ actions were reasonably sufficient under the circumstances.” 

Impact of this Decision for Brick-and-Mortar Stores in “High Crime” Areas

While this ruling is non-binding, the Superior Court’s decision and rationale may be cited for their persuasive value in future cases around the Commonwealth involving negligent security and criminal conduct. Commercial property owners, particularly ones that take affirmative steps to employ or contract security guards, should consider:

• The premises’ location, crime statistics of the neighborhood, and past criminal activity – even non-violent – occurring therein;
• Whether security is necessary and, if so, the level of training and schedule of the guard(s) as well as how they are being supervised by the establishment;
• Establishing safety plans to address various emergencies and potentially dangerous situations, including suspicious behavior of patrons; and
• Under what circumstances should law enforcement be contacted.

Brick-and-mortar businesses, particularly those operating in densely populated urban environments with higher crime rates, should take this case as a warning to re-evaluate their safety plans and seriously consider the steps they are taking to ensure their customers’ safety even beyond the walls of their shops. “Take it outside!” isn’t going to cut it anymore. Good luck and stay safe.

If you have questions about negligent security claims, premises liability exposure, or evaluating security policies and procedures for your business, please contact Joel Feigenbaum or Marc Primelo in Post & Schell's Casualty Litigation Department.