Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 752 So.2d 762 (La. 1999) Posecai was headed to her car in a Wal-Mart parking lot when she was robbed. She sued Wal-Mart for negligence in failing to provide security guards for the parking lot. Posecai lost $19k of jewelry. The Trial Court found for Posecai and awarded $30k. Wal-Mart appealed. The Trial Court noted that the area near the parking lot was a high crime area, and so Wal-Mart should have known that there might be robberies in their parking lot. The Appellate Court reversed. The Appellate Court found that the key point of the case was whether Wal-Mart owed Posecai a duty to protect. This hinged on whether it was foreseeable that she might be robbed. There are four approaches to foreseeability: Specific harm rule: No duty is owed unless the landowner is aware of specific imminent harm about to befall the plaintiff. Prior similar incidents rule: Foreseeability is established by evidence of previous similar instances. Totality of the circumstances test: Start with the prior similar incidents rule, but add in additional factors and relevant factual information, to possibly establish foreseeability despite a lack of prior similar instances. Balancing test: Balance the foreseeability of harm and the gravity of harm against the burden of imposing a duty to protect. The Court found the balancing test was the right test to use for foreseeability. In this case, there had only been 3 attacks in the Wal-Mart parking lot in the previous 6 years, so it would be unfair to ask Wal-Mart to provide security because the burden would outweigh the benefits.