LuAnn Plonski alleged that after shopping at a Kroger Co. grocery store in Indiana, during afternoon hours, she proceeded to the store's parking lot (where her car was parked), placed her purse in the shopping cart she was using, opened the trunk of her car, and began loading her groceries into the trunk. As she was doing this, she noticed that a man was walking toward her. He did not appear to be a Kroger employee (and, in fact, was not a Kroger employee). The man began running toward Plonski, who grabbed her purse from the shopping cart and tried to run away but did not succeed. The man grabbed Plonski and her purse. He then picked her up, threw her in the trunk of the car, and began slamming the trunk lid on her legs. When the man looked away, Plonski jumped out of the trunk and ran into the Kroger store. The man then left the scene with Plonski's purse.

In an effort to collect damages for her injuries and the loss of her purse, Plonski filed a negligence lawsuit against Kroger. Kroger moved for summary judgment, arguing that the company owed no duty to Plonski. In connection with its motion for summary judgment, Kroger provided affidavits from its risk manager and its safety manager. Those affidavits asserted that the Kroger store in whose parking lot the incident occurred is located in a part of the city with a low level of criminal activity and that in the 2-year period before the incident involving Plonski, there had been only one report of criminal activity occurring on the store's premises. The trial court denied Kroger's motion, and Kroger appealed. The case eventually made it to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The question before the court was, Did Kroger owe a duty to Plonski?

For students whose last names start with letters A through L, please post an argument as to why Kroger did owe a duty to Plonski. Please support your argument using material from the assigned readings and the asynchronous lectures for this week.

This week we talked about Intentional Torts Negligence and Strict Liability