Varone v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D490 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 18, 2026):
The plaintiffs sued the defendant Publix, after a tragic shooting at a Publix store. The plaintiffs asserted negligent security theories, arguing that the defendant had a duty to protect against this type of third-party criminal attack.
The trial court entered summary judgment, limiting its ruling to duty, and relying on Relyea v. State, 385 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), a case holding that a landowner owes no duty to protect an invitee from criminal attacks, unless the landowner has actual or constructive notice of prior similar criminal acts.
The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Relyea is still good law, and reiterating the main point from that case, i.e., that a premises owner’s duty to guard against third-party criminal attacks exists only to the extent the attack is reasonably foreseeable. The court concluded (as did the trial court), that on this record the shooting was not reasonably foreseeable. The court noted there was no evidence of prior batteries against a person, let alone shootings, at this Publix, and it rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to create foreseeability based on Publix’s conducing of active-shooter training and general national data about shootings.
In other words, while training and awareness may show the defendant knew active shooter events can happen somewhere, someday, that does not make it objectively reasonable to expect a random act of gun violence at a particular store, necessitating summary judgment for Publix on duty.