Need Case Brief (IRAC) on "Lord v. D & J Enterprises, Inc." also if you can provide facts on the case, if you can please label facts, issue, rules, analysis, conclusion separate from each other with the information

Lord v. D & J Enterprises, Inc. 757 S.E.2d 695 (S.C. Sup. Ct.) D & J Enterprises, Inc. operates businesses involving check cashing, payday lending, and motor vehicle title lending. One of its businesses is Cash on the Spot, which is located in Rock Hill, South Carolina. For the protection of employees, Cash on the Spot is outfitted with iron bars on the windows of its building and bulletproof glass on its tellers' windows. On February 14, 2008, Ida Lord went to Cash on the Spot to retrieve money that had been wired to her. As Lord approached a teller's window, a man seated at a nearby table stood up, reached under his clothing, pulled out a pistol, and shot Lord in the head and back. The man then demanded money as he slid his weapon through the opening in the teller's window. The store man- ager, who was stationed behind the bulletproof window and had access to a silent alarm, called 911. The man fled the premises but was soon arrested. He was later identified as Phillip Watts Jr. After Watts was apprehended, he confessed to committing seven armed robberies in Rock Hill and elsewhere in York County (where Rock Hill is located). Those robberies, which began in October 2007 and primarily targeted small businesses, were the subject of significant media coverage. Two of the publicized robberies occurred within three weeks prior to the Cash on the Spot incident. In those robberies, Watts shot two store clerks and a bystander. Before the February 14, 2008, incident in which Lord Chapter Seven Negligence and Strict Liability 257 was shot, D & J's president, Darrell Starnes (who oversaw the corporation's day-to-day operations), warned his employees to be vigilant because "there is a madman on the loose. " Watts ultimately pleaded guilty but mentally ill to criminal charges in connection with the Cash on the Spot incident and the other armed robberies. Lord filed a negligence lawsuit against D & J in a South Carolina court in an effort to obtain damages for what she described as the "catastrophic brain injuries" she suffered in the shooting. She alleged that D & J breached its duty to use reasonable care to protect her while she was at Cash on the Spot. D & J later moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to protect Lord from the injuries directly caused by Watts. It was not foreseeable that Watts would shoot Lord, D & J contended, because Watts appeared to be a regular customer, because the incident lasted less than six seconds, and because there had not been prior instances of attempted armed robberies or acts of violence at Cash on the Spot. In opposing D & J's motion, Lord offered the deposition testimony of D & J officers and employees, an affidavit from a private security expert who opined that D & J should have had a security guard stationed at Cash on the Spot, and evidence of media coverage of the earlier robberies committed by Walls. Concluding that D & J did not owe a duty to Lord, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of D & J. After Lord appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of South Carolina certified the case for resolution by that court rather than the Court of Appeals.Beatty, Justice court's finding that Gopal, Inc., . . . did not have a duty to In this premises liability case involving a third-party criminal protect Bass from the criminal act of a third party. [ We] noted act, Lord . . . asserts the court erred in granting summary judge that the threshold question in any negligence action is whether ment to D & J because she presented . . . evidence showing a the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff. [We stated that genuine issue of material fact as to each element of her negli- although] "an innkeeper is not the insurer of [the] safety of gence claim. Specifically, Lord asserts that: (1) D & J owed a its guests," an innkeeper "is under a duty to its guests to take duty to her as she was a business invitee on the premises of Cash reasonable action to protect them against unreasonable risk of on the Spot; (2) the risk of harm to her was foreseeable because physical harm." The court [further] explained in Gopal I/ that D & J's president admitted he knew before the shooting that "a business owner has a duty to take a reasonable action to pro- "there was a madman on the loose" and reviewed procedures tect its invitees against the foreseeable risk of physical harm."* with D & J employees regarding a response to a potential armed In assessing the foreseeability issue, the Gopal / court [ad- robbery; (3) D & J failed to post a security guard at the entrance opted] a balancing test, which . . . acknowledges that duty is a of Cash on the Spot despite the foreseen risk of a shooting; flexible concept, and seeks to balance the degree of foreseeabil- (4) the affidavit of private security expert Robert Clark estab- ity of harm against the burden of the duty imposed. The court lished that the shooting of Lord "most probably would not have explained that "the more foreseeable a crime, the more onerous occurred if D & J had posted a security guard"; and (5) there is is a business owner's burden of providing security." Accordingly, evidence that the shooting caused Lord to suffer profound neu- "[under this test, the presence or absence of prior criminal inci- rological complications. dents is a significant factor in determining the amount of security Bass v. Gopal, Inc., 716 S.E.2d 910 (S.C. Sup. Ct. 2011) required of a business owner, but their absence does not fore- (Gopal II) . . . is used to determine a business owner's duty close the duty to provide some level of security if other factors to protect a patron based on the foreseeability of violent acts support a heightened risk." The court found that "the balancing by third parties. Gopal // was a premises liability action that approach appropriately weighs both the economic concerns of arose out of the shooting of Gerald Bass while he was a guest businesses and the safety concerns of their patrons." By adopting at the Super 8 Motel in Orangeburg, South Carolina. Gopal, this test, the court hoped to "encourage a reasonable response to Inc., a Super 8 franchisee, owned and operated the motel. [The the crime phenomenon without making unreasonable demands." shooter was someone who was at the motel for the apparent Applying the balancing approach to the facts of Bass's case, purpose of committing a robbery.] Bass filed a complaint al- the court found the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the grant leging negligence [on the part of] Gopal, Inc. and Super 8. of summary judgment in favor of Gopal, Inc. In reaching this The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which decision, the court determined that Bass presented "at least some were granted by the circuit court. The South Carolina Court evidence the aggravated assault was foreseeable" because Bass of Appeals affirmed. [Bass appealed to the Supreme Court of produced a CRIMECAST report that showed . . . the risk of rape, South Carolina.] In [ruling on Bass's appeal in] Gopal /, we considered whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the circuit Gerald BASS, Appellant, v. GOPAL, INC. and Super & Motels, Inc., Respondents. No. 4576.robbery, and aggravated assaults at the Super 8 as compared to through the testimony of an expert. Here, unlike the plaintiff the national average risk, the state average risk, and the county in Gopal II, Lord presented expert testimony precisely on this average risk. point. Robert Clark, Lord's expert in private security, reviewed The court, however, found Bass did not provide any evidence the media coverage of the prior armed robberies, reviewed the that Gopal Inc.'s preventative measures were unreasonable given deposition testimonies of Starnes and Boyd, and conducted a the risk of criminal activity on the property. Although Bass pre- field investigation of the security measures used at Cash on the sented the deposition testimony of an expert who "concluded the Spot. Based on his investigation, Clark opined that D & J "had addition of a closed circuit camera or some type of additional a duty, in the exercise of reasonable care, to post a security security personnel would have been reasonable in light of his guard at the entrance" of Cash on the Spot in order to "provide perceived risk," the court found Bass "failed to provide any evi- reasonable protection for its employees and customers against dence that [Gopal, Inc.] should have expended more resources the threat of a serial armed robber who had shot two store clerks to curtail the risk of criminal activity that might have been and a bystander in two previous armed robberies of businesses probable." Instead, the court found determinative the expert's that fit the profile of D & J's business." He further stated, "The statement that "if . . . this is [ the] first time [a criminal incident armed robbery attempt during which Ida Lord was shot most occurred], there wasn't enough data for [Gopal, Inc.] to say he re- probably would not have occurred if D & J had posted a secu- ally needed to spend a bunch of money on surveillance cameras, rity guard at the entrance of its check cashing location." a bunch of money on a full-time security guard or part-time, or As we noted in Gopal /, "whether a business proprietor's train his employees to do a guard tour." security measures were reasonable in light of a risk will, at many [Gopal II provides controlling insights on] how to deter- times, be identified by an expert." Here, Lord presented such mine (1) if a crime is foreseeable, and (2) the economically expert testimony. Under the specific facts presented in this case, feasible security measures that are required to prevent the fore- we find the expert testimony was sufficient to create a question seeable harm. Applying the Gopal // balancing test [to the case of fact for the jury. at hand], we hold the circuit court erred in granting summary [Wje conclude it is premature to deprive Lord of the oppor- judgment to D & J. Viewing the evidence in the light most fa- tunity to present her case to a jury. At this stage, it is not the vorable to Lord, we find she presented [enough] evidence to role of the circuit court or this court to determine whether Lord withstand the motion for summary judgment as to her negli- will prevail on her negligence claim, but whether she presented gence claim against D & J. [sufficient] evidence to withstand D & J's motion for summary To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish judgment. duty, breach, causation, and damages. The key determination We emphasize that our decision should not be construed as in the instant case is whether D & J breached its duty to take requiring all merchants to hire costly security guards. Instead, reasonable action to protect Lord, its business invitee, against we merely find that it is for a jury to decide whether D & J em- the foreseeable risk of physical harm. Regarding the foresee- ployed reasonable security measures to fulfill its duty to protect ability prong of Gopal /1, Lord presented the deposition tes- Lord from the foreseeable risk of a shooting. Clearly, D & J timony of Starnes (D & J's president) and Marsha Boyd, the recognized that it was susceptible to an armed robbery at Cash manager of Cash on the Spot the day of the shooting. Starnes on the Spot, as it had installed security cameras and placed bars and Boyd testified they were aware of the prior robberies in on the office windows. It also sought to protect its employees York County because the local newspapers had covered the in- by placing them behind bulletproof glass, equipping them with cidents. Prior to the shooting, Starnes discussed the robberies panic buttons, and providing them with immediate access to with his employees and warned them to "be on their toes to a silent alarm. The circumstances of this case, however, pre- look out for suspicious people" because there was a "madman sented a heightened risk of danger beyond the ordinary opera- on the loose." Based on the foregoing, we find, as did the cir- tion of Cash on the Spot. As evidenced by Starnes's deposition cuit court, that Lord produced at least some evidence that the testimony, there was a foreseeable risk of a shooting at Cash shooting was foreseeable. on the Spot given the rash of armed robberies that culminated [T The question [ then] becomes whether D & J's preventative in the shootings of store clerks and customers at nearby busi- security measures were unreasonable given this risk. Lord pri- nesses. Under these unique facts, we cannot find that D & J marily asserts that D & J should have posted a security guard at was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Lord's cause of the entrance of Cash on the Spot. Although this court in Gopal action for negligence. I/ acknowledged the significant cost associated with hiring se- curity guards absent evidence of prior crimes on the premises, Circuit court's grant of summary judgment to D & J reversed; we stated that a plaintiff may produce evidence of this prong case remanded for trial regarding Lord's negligence claim