Park sued Exxon Mobil for negligence, asserting it owed a duty to protect him, as a business invitee, from the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. Park was treated at a hospital and survived his injuries. The police found many quarters scattered on the ground at the scene. The entire incident took about ten seconds. The man then went into Park's car, removed something from the passenger's side, and got back into the getaway vehicle. As Park prepared to get gas, a man got out of another car and shot him. He had larger bills from the store in his pants pockets. As was his custom, Park had change and small bills from his store in a paper bag on the floor on the passenger side of his car. He stopped to get gas at an Exxon Mobil station located at 1607 Inwood Road in Dallas. on July 15, 2009, Park was on his way home from work at a convenience store he owned.
Exxon the road not taken summary trial#
Because we conclude as a matter of law that the shooting was not foreseeable, we affirm the trial court's judgment.Īt about 2 a.m.
In six issues, Park contends the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted Exxon Mobil's motion for summary judgment, in which it asserted it owed no duty to Park because the crime against him was not foreseeable. After Park was shot at an Exxon Mobil station, he sued Exxon Mobil for negligence. Gunn, Adcock John S., for Exxon Mobil Corporation.Īt issue in this premises liability case is whether Exxon Mobil Corporation owed Chan Park the duty to protect him from the criminal acts of third parties. Decided: March 28, 2014īefore Justices O'NEILL, MYERS, and BROWN.
0 kommentar(er)
