Loading
Retail
10 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Premises Liability, Security, Security Guard, Property Management, Lighting
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Georgia State
In Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael (316 Ga. 718, decided June 29, 2023), the Georgia Supreme Court reviewed how a property owner’s duty to keep premises and approaches safe under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1 applies when an injury is caused by violence on the property. The case arose from a 2012 shooting in a CVS parking lot in Atlanta, where James Carmichael was seriously injured and later received a $42.75 million damages award after a jury found CVS primarily at fault. In a consolidated review with Welch v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc. and Welch v. Tactical Security Group, LLC, the Court held that courts must examine the full factual setting surrounding the alleged risk, rather than limiting the inquiry to prior identical incidents. The Court also confirmed that juries usually decide whether the risk was predictable from the evidence and held that, under the verdict form and jury instructions used in Carmichael, the jury’s decision to assign no fault to the unidentified assailant did not invalidate the verdict.
The decision clarified how Georgia negligent-security cases may address earlier events, site conditions, what the property owner knew, and the scope of its duty in commercial-property settings. The Court’s analysis focused on the evidence presented in Carmichael, including earlier robberies, employee safety concerns, parking-lot lighting, and CVS’s prior use and removal of a security guard. Although proprietors are not insurers of visitor safety, the ruling allows juries to consider a broader factual record when deciding whether the shooting was a risk CVS could reasonably anticipate under Georgia premises-liability law.
Before the December 2012 shooting, the record identified three earlier crimes at the CVS property after CVS discharged its security guard: two armed robberies of employees inside the store and one robbery of a customer in the parking lot. The record also included employee testimony about safety concerns at the store, including poor parking-lot lighting, the store’s location in an area with documented public-safety concerns, and concerns about employees walking to their vehicles. Those details became part of the Court’s review of what CVS knew before the shooting and whether the risk could reasonably be anticipated.
The earlier robberies, employee safety concerns, lighting conditions, and CVS’s prior use of a security guard were relevant to whether CVS met its duty under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1. Under the Georgia Supreme Court’s combined-facts approach, the jury could consider these details together when deciding whether the later shooting was predictable from the record.
In December 2012, James Carmichael was shot during an armed robbery that took place in and around his vehicle in the parking lot of a CVS store in Atlanta, Georgia. He suffered serious injuries and later filed a premises liability lawsuit alleging that CVS failed to keep the premises and approaches safe for invitees.
The lawsuit focused on whether CVS had reason to anticipate the risk of violence on the premises based on earlier crimes, employee safety concerns, parking-lot conditions, and the store’s prior use of a security guard. These facts became central to whether CVS had a legal duty to take reasonable precautions before the shooting.
A Fulton County jury found CVS 95 percent at fault and Carmichael 5 percent at fault, resulting in a $42.75 million judgment after fault allocation. The jury assigned no fault to the unidentified shooter and placed primary responsibility on CVS based on the evidence presented about parking-lot conditions, security decisions, and premises-safety issues.
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the attack was reasonably predictable from the evidence and that CVS, as the property occupier, had superior knowledge of the hazard. The appellate ruling kept the verdict intact and set the stage for Georgia Supreme Court review.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief urging the Georgia Supreme Court to grant certiorari after the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict. The Chamber’s brief focused on Georgia’s apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, and argued that nonparty fault should be available for consideration when an action is brought against multiple defendants. This filing focused on how fault should be allocated when a third-party assailant directly causes the plaintiff’s injury.
On October 4, 2022, the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael. The Court agreed to review questions involving the predictability of the harm, the role of judge and jury in negligent-security cases, the proper test for evaluating the risk, and whether a rational factfinder could assign no fault to an intentional tortfeasor whose conduct directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The certiorari order connected Carmichael with the Court’s review of related negligent-security issues in Welch v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc. and Welch v. Tactical Security Group, LLC.
After the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce filed a merits-stage amicus brief. The brief addressed apportionment, nonparty fault, and premises-liability concerns arising from the Georgia Court of Appeals’ ruling.
The filing argued that no rational jury could assign zero percent fault to an intentional tortfeasor whose conduct directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries. It also challenged the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 in cases filed against multiple defendants but tried against a single defendant.
The Georgia Supreme Court issued its consolidated opinion in Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael, Welch v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc., and Welch v. Tactical Security Group, LLC. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision in Carmichael and held that the risk of third-party violence must be assessed through the full record, not by looking only for identical prior crimes.
The Court also clarified that juries usually decide this issue when the record contains evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the harm was predictable. Under the specific verdict form and jury instructions in Carmichael, the Court held that the jury’s decision to assign no fault to the unidentified shooter did not invalidate the verdict. In the consolidated Welch matter, the Court further held that a security contractor may owe a duty to third parties under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, law firms Swift Currie LLP and WSHB Law released analyses explaining that Carmichael could make negligent-security claims harder to resolve at summary judgment. Their commentary focused on the Court’s broader fact-based approach, including earlier crimes, property conditions, location characteristics, and a proprietor’s knowledge of reported safety concerns.
The post-decision commentary also noted that property owners and operators may need to maintain stronger records of safety measures, lighting conditions, incident history, and management responses to reported risks.
The Mercer Law Review’s 2024 commentary, Proprietors Beware, examined how Carmichael affected Georgia negligent-security law after the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision. The article discussed how courts may evaluate the full factual record, including earlier incidents, property conditions, and a proprietor’s knowledge of potential risks. The commentary discussed Carmichael in relation to Georgia premises-liability law and the way courts assess violence by nonparties on commercial properties.
Court:
Supreme Court of Georgia
Case Name:
Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael
Premises Security
Security Negligence
Security Guard Procedures
Crime Prevention
Retail Store Safety
Retail Store Management
Public Lighting
Shooting Reconstruction
Safety And Security
In Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael (316 Ga. 718, decided June 29, 2023), the Georgia Supreme Court reviewed how a property owner’s duty to keep premises and approaches safe under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1 applies when an injury is caused by violence on the property. The case arose from a 2012 shooting in a CVS parking lot in Atlanta, where James Carmichael was seriously injured and later received a $42.75 million damages award after a jury found CVS primarily at fault. In a consolidated review with Welch v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc. and Welch v. Tactical Security Group, LLC, the Court held that courts must examine the full factual setting surrounding the alleged risk, rather than limiting the inquiry to prior identical incidents. The Court also confirmed that juries usually decide whether the risk was predictable from the evidence and held that, under the verdict form and jury instructions used in Carmichael, the jury’s decision to assign no fault to the unidentified assailant did not invalidate the verdict.
The decision clarified how Georgia negligent-security cases may address earlier events, site conditions, what the property owner knew, and the scope of its duty in commercial-property settings. The Court’s analysis focused on the evidence presented in Carmichael, including earlier robberies, employee safety concerns, parking-lot lighting, and CVS’s prior use and removal of a security guard. Although proprietors are not insurers of visitor safety, the ruling allows juries to consider a broader factual record when deciding whether the shooting was a risk CVS could reasonably anticipate under Georgia premises-liability law.
Before the December 2012 shooting, the record identified three earlier crimes at the CVS property after CVS discharged its security guard: two armed robberies of employees inside the store and one robbery of a customer in the parking lot. The record also included employee testimony about safety concerns at the store, including poor parking-lot lighting, the store’s location in an area with documented public-safety concerns, and concerns about employees walking to their vehicles. Those details became part of the Court’s review of what CVS knew before the shooting and whether the risk could reasonably be anticipated.
The earlier robberies, employee safety concerns, lighting conditions, and CVS’s prior use of a security guard were relevant to whether CVS met its duty under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1. Under the Georgia Supreme Court’s combined-facts approach, the jury could consider these details together when deciding whether the later shooting was predictable from the record.
In December 2012, James Carmichael was shot during an armed robbery that took place in and around his vehicle in the parking lot of a CVS store in Atlanta, Georgia. He suffered serious injuries and later filed a premises liability lawsuit alleging that CVS failed to keep the premises and approaches safe for invitees.
The lawsuit focused on whether CVS had reason to anticipate the risk of violence on the premises based on earlier crimes, employee safety concerns, parking-lot conditions, and the store’s prior use of a security guard. These facts became central to whether CVS had a legal duty to take reasonable precautions before the shooting.
A Fulton County jury found CVS 95 percent at fault and Carmichael 5 percent at fault, resulting in a $42.75 million judgment after fault allocation. The jury assigned no fault to the unidentified shooter and placed primary responsibility on CVS based on the evidence presented about parking-lot conditions, security decisions, and premises-safety issues.
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the attack was reasonably predictable from the evidence and that CVS, as the property occupier, had superior knowledge of the hazard. The appellate ruling kept the verdict intact and set the stage for Georgia Supreme Court review.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief urging the Georgia Supreme Court to grant certiorari after the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict. The Chamber’s brief focused on Georgia’s apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, and argued that nonparty fault should be available for consideration when an action is brought against multiple defendants. This filing focused on how fault should be allocated when a third-party assailant directly causes the plaintiff’s injury.
On October 4, 2022, the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael. The Court agreed to review questions involving the predictability of the harm, the role of judge and jury in negligent-security cases, the proper test for evaluating the risk, and whether a rational factfinder could assign no fault to an intentional tortfeasor whose conduct directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The certiorari order connected Carmichael with the Court’s review of related negligent-security issues in Welch v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc. and Welch v. Tactical Security Group, LLC.
After the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce filed a merits-stage amicus brief. The brief addressed apportionment, nonparty fault, and premises-liability concerns arising from the Georgia Court of Appeals’ ruling.
The filing argued that no rational jury could assign zero percent fault to an intentional tortfeasor whose conduct directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries. It also challenged the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 in cases filed against multiple defendants but tried against a single defendant.
The Georgia Supreme Court issued its consolidated opinion in Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael, Welch v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc., and Welch v. Tactical Security Group, LLC. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision in Carmichael and held that the risk of third-party violence must be assessed through the full record, not by looking only for identical prior crimes.
The Court also clarified that juries usually decide this issue when the record contains evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the harm was predictable. Under the specific verdict form and jury instructions in Carmichael, the Court held that the jury’s decision to assign no fault to the unidentified shooter did not invalidate the verdict. In the consolidated Welch matter, the Court further held that a security contractor may owe a duty to third parties under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, law firms Swift Currie LLP and WSHB Law released analyses explaining that Carmichael could make negligent-security claims harder to resolve at summary judgment. Their commentary focused on the Court’s broader fact-based approach, including earlier crimes, property conditions, location characteristics, and a proprietor’s knowledge of reported safety concerns.
The post-decision commentary also noted that property owners and operators may need to maintain stronger records of safety measures, lighting conditions, incident history, and management responses to reported risks.
The Mercer Law Review’s 2024 commentary, Proprietors Beware, examined how Carmichael affected Georgia negligent-security law after the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision. The article discussed how courts may evaluate the full factual record, including earlier incidents, property conditions, and a proprietor’s knowledge of potential risks. The commentary discussed Carmichael in relation to Georgia premises-liability law and the way courts assess violence by nonparties on commercial properties.
A premises security expert witness is often engaged in negligent-security cases involving commercial or retail properties. This expert may review site-security procedures, lighting conditions, access points, incident history, security staffing practices, and whether safety measures were consistent with ordinary care. Their analysis can help attorneys and courts evaluate how property conditions and security decisions may relate to alleged premises-safety failures.
A law enforcement expert witness is often engaged in negligent-security cases involving third-party violence, incident history, or disputed security responses. This expert may review police reports, incident patterns, response procedures, security staffing decisions, and whether reported risks were handled in a reasonable manner. Their analysis can help explain how prior incidents, property conditions, and safety practices may relate to foreseeability and ordinary care in premises-liability litigation.
Property management experts are often engaged in premises liability cases to review operational control, maintenance procedures, and adherence to safety protocols across retail or multifamily environments. In similar cases, their analysis may address corporate responses to prior safety complaints, security staffing decisions, and lighting maintenance policies.
Shooting reconstruction experts are typically engaged to evaluate the physical and environmental factors involved in firearm-related incidents. Their analyses may include examining bullet trajectories, spatial positioning of vehicles or individuals, lighting visibility, and the timing of events captured by surveillance footage.
Economic damages experts are commonly retained to assess the financial impact of personal injuries and other losses. Their analyses often include calculations of medical expenses, lost earnings, diminished earning capacity, and long-term care costs. These experts provide objective valuations that help courts and juries understand the measurable economic consequences associated with property-related incidents and liability claims.
Attorneys should develop a factual record that addresses the property’s location, parking-lot conditions, earlier crimes, employee safety concerns, and prior security decisions. After Carmichael, the inquiry is not limited to earlier crimes that mirror the later event.
Maintenance logs, lighting records, security-vendor contracts, inspection reports, and safety audits can help show how an owner or occupier responded to known property risks. In Carmichael, the record included evidence about parking-lot lighting, employee concerns, and CVS’s earlier use and removal of a security guard.
Because these disputes often turn on what a jury could infer from the record, defendants may face a higher burden when seeking summary judgment in negligent-security cases. Legal teams should review site inspections, incident history, expert reports, and property-condition evidence early in the litigation.
Carmichael shows how verdict forms and jury instructions can affect the treatment of an assailant’s conduct and a property owner’s alleged safety duties. Attorneys should clearly separate the intentional act from the alleged premises-safety failures when addressing fault allocation.
In the consolidated Welch matter, the Georgia Supreme Court held that a security contractor may owe a duty to third parties under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A. Clear contracts, defined responsibilities, documented communication procedures, and consistent reporting practices can help reduce disputes over shared duties.
Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael ended with the Georgia Supreme Court affirming the judgment for James Carmichael after the 2012 shooting in a CVS parking lot. The Court reviewed evidence of earlier robberies, employee safety concerns, parking-lot lighting, and CVS’s prior use and removal of a security guard, then held that Georgia negligent-security cases require a broader review of the factual record rather than a narrow search for identical earlier incidents. The Court also addressed the jury’s fault allocation, including the decision to assign no fault to the unidentified assailant, and held that the allocation did not invalidate the verdict under the verdict form and jury instructions used in Carmichael. The ruling left the $42.75 million damages award intact and clarified how Georgia courts may evaluate nonparty violence, site conditions, and a property owner’s duty under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1.
How did earlier incidents and site conditions affect the ruling in Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael?
The case examined whether CVS had notice of safety risks before the 2012 shooting based on earlier crimes, employee safety concerns, parking-lot lighting, and other conditions at the Atlanta store. James Carmichael argued that these facts showed CVS could have anticipated the risk of violence on the premises. The Georgia Supreme Court required a broader review of the evidence, not just a comparison to identical prior events.
What did the Georgia Supreme Court decide on June 29, 2023?
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the $42.75 million verdict for Carmichael and clarified how Georgia premises-liability cases may address violence by a nonparty. The Court ruled that site conditions, earlier events, and reported safety concerns may be considered together. It also confirmed that juries usually decide whether the risk was predictable from the evidence.
Why did the Court reject a prior-identical-incident-only standard?
The Court declined to limit the inquiry to earlier incidents that exactly matched the later harm. Instead, it allowed courts and juries to consider related risks, property conditions, prior safety concerns, and the surrounding environment. This made the full factual record central to the duty analysis.
How did lighting, security-guard removal, and earlier robberies affect the ruling?
The evidence included prior robberies, employee concerns about safety, parking-lot lighting issues, and the removal of a security guard before the shooting. These facts supported Carmichael’s argument that CVS had reason to anticipate a risk of violence at the property. The jury could consider those conditions together when deciding whether the shooting was predictable from the record.
How did the ruling address property owners’ ordinary-care duties in negligent-security cases?
A premises security expert witness is often engaged in negligent-security cases involving commercial or retail properties. This expert may review site-security procedures, lighting conditions, access points, incident history, security staffing practices, and whether safety measures were consistent with ordinary care. Their analysis can help attorneys and courts evaluate how property conditions and security decisions may relate to alleged premises-safety failures.
A law enforcement expert witness is often engaged in negligent-security cases involving third-party violence, incident history, or disputed security responses. This expert may review police reports, incident patterns, response procedures, security staffing decisions, and whether reported risks were handled in a reasonable manner. Their analysis can help explain how prior incidents, property conditions, and safety practices may relate to foreseeability and ordinary care in premises-liability litigation.
Property management experts are often engaged in premises liability cases to review operational control, maintenance procedures, and adherence to safety protocols across retail or multifamily environments. In similar cases, their analysis may address corporate responses to prior safety complaints, security staffing decisions, and lighting maintenance policies.
Shooting reconstruction experts are typically engaged to evaluate the physical and environmental factors involved in firearm-related incidents. Their analyses may include examining bullet trajectories, spatial positioning of vehicles or individuals, lighting visibility, and the timing of events captured by surveillance footage.
Economic damages experts are commonly retained to assess the financial impact of personal injuries and other losses. Their analyses often include calculations of medical expenses, lost earnings, diminished earning capacity, and long-term care costs. These experts provide objective valuations that help courts and juries understand the measurable economic consequences associated with property-related incidents and liability claims.
Attorneys should develop a factual record that addresses the property’s location, parking-lot conditions, earlier crimes, employee safety concerns, and prior security decisions. After Carmichael, the inquiry is not limited to earlier crimes that mirror the later event.
Maintenance logs, lighting records, security-vendor contracts, inspection reports, and safety audits can help show how an owner or occupier responded to known property risks. In Carmichael, the record included evidence about parking-lot lighting, employee concerns, and CVS’s earlier use and removal of a security guard.
Because these disputes often turn on what a jury could infer from the record, defendants may face a higher burden when seeking summary judgment in negligent-security cases. Legal teams should review site inspections, incident history, expert reports, and property-condition evidence early in the litigation.
Carmichael shows how verdict forms and jury instructions can affect the treatment of an assailant’s conduct and a property owner’s alleged safety duties. Attorneys should clearly separate the intentional act from the alleged premises-safety failures when addressing fault allocation.
In the consolidated Welch matter, the Georgia Supreme Court held that a security contractor may owe a duty to third parties under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A. Clear contracts, defined responsibilities, documented communication procedures, and consistent reporting practices can help reduce disputes over shared duties.
Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael ended with the Georgia Supreme Court affirming the judgment for James Carmichael after the 2012 shooting in a CVS parking lot. The Court reviewed evidence of earlier robberies, employee safety concerns, parking-lot lighting, and CVS’s prior use and removal of a security guard, then held that Georgia negligent-security cases require a broader review of the factual record rather than a narrow search for identical earlier incidents. The Court also addressed the jury’s fault allocation, including the decision to assign no fault to the unidentified assailant, and held that the allocation did not invalidate the verdict under the verdict form and jury instructions used in Carmichael. The ruling left the $42.75 million damages award intact and clarified how Georgia courts may evaluate nonparty violence, site conditions, and a property owner’s duty under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1.
How did earlier incidents and site conditions affect the ruling in Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael?
The case examined whether CVS had notice of safety risks before the 2012 shooting based on earlier crimes, employee safety concerns, parking-lot lighting, and other conditions at the Atlanta store. James Carmichael argued that these facts showed CVS could have anticipated the risk of violence on the premises. The Georgia Supreme Court required a broader review of the evidence, not just a comparison to identical prior events.
What did the Georgia Supreme Court decide on June 29, 2023?
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the $42.75 million verdict for Carmichael and clarified how Georgia premises-liability cases may address violence by a nonparty. The Court ruled that site conditions, earlier events, and reported safety concerns may be considered together. It also confirmed that juries usually decide whether the risk was predictable from the evidence.
Why did the Court reject a prior-identical-incident-only standard?
The Court declined to limit the inquiry to earlier incidents that exactly matched the later harm. Instead, it allowed courts and juries to consider related risks, property conditions, prior safety concerns, and the surrounding environment. This made the full factual record central to the duty analysis.
How did lighting, security-guard removal, and earlier robberies affect the ruling?
The evidence included prior robberies, employee concerns about safety, parking-lot lighting issues, and the removal of a security guard before the shooting. These facts supported Carmichael’s argument that CVS had reason to anticipate a risk of violence at the property. The jury could consider those conditions together when deciding whether the shooting was predictable from the record.
How did the ruling address property owners’ ordinary-care duties in negligent-security cases?
The ruling allows courts and juries to consider known risks, prior safety complaints, lighting conditions, security decisions, and incident history when deciding whether the owner’s response was reasonable. It does not make proprietors insurers of visitor safety. It does, however, permit a broader factual review when a negligent-security claim involves violence by a nonparty.
How can property management records affect negligent-security litigation after Carmichael?
Property management records may become important evidence in negligent-security cases, including maintenance logs, lighting reports, security-vendor agreements, incident reports, employee complaints, and inspection records. These records can help show what the property owner knew, how safety concerns were handled, and whether the response was reasonable under the circumstances.
Premises Security
Security Negligence
Security Guard Procedures
Crime Prevention
Retail Store Safety
Retail Store Management
Public Lighting
Shooting Reconstruction
Safety And Security
Elevator & Escalator, +4
Retail
Product Liability, +4
Retail
The ruling allows courts and juries to consider known risks, prior safety complaints, lighting conditions, security decisions, and incident history when deciding whether the owner’s response was reasonable. It does not make proprietors insurers of visitor safety. It does, however, permit a broader factual review when a negligent-security claim involves violence by a nonparty.
How can property management records affect negligent-security litigation after Carmichael?
Property management records may become important evidence in negligent-security cases, including maintenance logs, lighting reports, security-vendor agreements, incident reports, employee complaints, and inspection records. These records can help show what the property owner knew, how safety concerns were handled, and whether the response was reasonable under the circumstances.