Davis v. Dollar Tree, Inc.

Background

Synquez Davis went to a Dollar Tree store in Burnsville, Minnesota, to apply for a job. Before Davis arrived, Dollar Tree employee Tyler Rousseau and Grant Hendrickson had a physical altercation. After the store manager repeatedly ordered Hendrickson to leave, several employees escorted him out. Davis alleged that the employees did not warn customers about possible danger or secure the store if Hendrickson returned.

Hendrickson later returned holding a gun. He fired two shots as Davis approached the front of the store, hitting Davis near the knee. After Davis fell and tried to move to safety, Hendrickson approached and shot him in the torso. Davis brought a negligence action against Dollar Tree in Minnesota state court. Dollar Tree removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction, and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Legal standard

For a negligence claim under Minnesota law, a plaintiff must allege a duty of care, a breach of that duty, an injury, and proximate causation. On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly support relief.

Count I: Vicarious liability

Davis alleged that Dollar Tree was vicariously liable for its employees’ negligent failure to warn customers, secure the store, or intervene in the altercation. Vicarious liability can apply when an employee’s negligent conduct occurs within the course and scope of employment.

The court explained that employees generally do not have a duty to warn or protect others from harm caused by a third party unless a special relationship or another basis for a duty exists. Davis did not allege a special relationship with the employees. The court concluded that Rousseau’s alleged role in instigating the altercation was enough to raise an issue about whether his conduct created a foreseeable risk of injury to Davis. But the complaint did not allege facts showing that Rousseau was acting in the course and scope of his employment, furthering Dollar Tree’s interests, authorized to act that way, or acting in a manner Dollar Tree could reasonably have foreseen. The court therefore held that Davis failed to state a vicarious-liability claim.

Count II: Negligence in developing security measures

Davis alleged that Dollar Tree negligently failed to develop security protocols to protect customers from a dangerous person entering the store. The court noted that “negligence in developing security measures” is not a separate recognized cause of action under Minnesota law, so it analyzed the allegations under general negligence principles.

The court held that the merchant-customer relationship did not create a specific duty to warn or protect Davis. It also held that the connection between Dollar Tree’s alleged failure to develop security measures and Davis’s injury was too remote, and that Hendrickson’s return to the store and shooting of Davis was not an objectively reasonable danger for Dollar Tree to expect. Because the complaint did not show that Dollar Tree owed Davis a duty of care, Count II failed to state a claim.

Count III: Negligent supervision, hiring, and retention

Davis alleged negligent supervision, hiring, and retention. The court treated these as three distinct claims under Minnesota law. It held that negligent supervision is a form of vicarious liability and therefore requires an employee’s negligent act to have occurred within the scope of employment. Because Davis did not allege that a Dollar Tree employee acted negligently within that scope, the negligent-supervision claim failed.

The court explained that negligent hiring and negligent retention impose direct liability on an employer when the employer exposes the public to a potentially dangerous employee. Davis did not allege that a Dollar Tree employee committed an intentional tort causing his injury, and the complaint contained no facts showing that Dollar Tree knew or should have known that an employee was violent or might engage in violence. The negligent-hiring and negligent-retention claims therefore also failed.

Disposition

The court granted Dollar Tree’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed Davis’s complaint without prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order on January 11, 2019.