Court Applies Program of Protection Standard Relative to Negligence By Security Services at Casino

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Jackson v. Live! Casino and Hotel, No. 2792 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Feb. 24, 2026 Bowes, J., King, J., and Ford Elliott, P.J.E.) (Mem. Op. by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the “program of protection” standard in Pennsylvania in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of the Plaintiff being attacked by other patrons while at the casino. It was noted that the assailant was allegedly intoxicated.

With regards to the “program of protection" issue, the Superior Court noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recognized that the voluntary gratuitous adoption of a program of protection, such as by employing security personnel, gives rise to the expectation that the security personnel will perform their duties with reasonable care. As such, where the security provided is not executed reasonably, and that negligence is the proximate cause of the harm, liability can attach.

The Superior Court found that the evidence presented in this case was sufficient to support the Plaintiff’s claims of negligence asserted against the casino. 

More specifically, the court found that the evidence presented at trial established that the Plaintiff was injured as a result of the Defendant’s failure to reasonably execute its security program. 

Accordingly, the Superior Court held that the trial court properly concluded that the Defendant was not entitled to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in this case in which the jury entered a multi-million dollar verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.

The court otherwise rejected the Defendant’s claims that it was entitled to a new trial.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Anthony J. Gabriel of the Hummelstown, PA office of the McQuaide Balsko law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Kvnga on www.pexels.com.

Court Addresses Liability of Store To Customer Attacked By Assailant After Leaving the Store

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Borth v. Alpha Century Security, Inc., No. 2044 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Aug. 1, 2025 Lazarus, P.J., Beck, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Mem. Op. by Lazarus, P.J.) (non-precedential), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Rite Aid and certain security companies in a lawsuit arising out of an incident during which the Plaintiff was assaulted by an individual at a location over 700 feet from the Rite Aid store.

According to the ruling, the assailant had been seen following the Plaintiff in the store and then left the store shortly after the Plaintiff left.  The record indicated that the security guards allegedly noticed this activity.

The appellate court ultimately ruled that the Defendants owed the Plaintiffs the duty owed to any business invitee, which was to take reasonable precautions against harmful third party conduct that might be reasonably anticipated.

The Superior Court additionally noted that, while it agreed with the trial court’s determination that Rite Aid’s duty to protect its invitees “does not extend to an area beyond its parking lot, city blocks from its location,” the Superior Court disagreed that it necessarily followed, under the facts in this case, that the subject attack was unforeseeable as a matter of law or that the criminal act of the assailant was a superseding event. See Op. at 8-9. 

The court noted that, although the Plaintiff was no longer on Rite Aid property when she was attacked by the assailant, it was not entirely clear whether Rite Aid’s precautions, or the security company Defendants’ actions, were reasonable and/or sufficient under the circumstances.

In this regard, the court noted that the Rite Aid store was in possession of reports putting the store on notice of crimes in the area. Moreover, there is evidence in this case that the representatives of the security company in the store was suspicious of the assailant in terms of his following the Plaintiff in the store and also leaving the store without buying anything shortly after the Plaintiff left the store.

In the end, the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Anyone wishing to review this non-precedential decision of the Superior Court may click this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Rayner Simpson on www.unsplash.com.

I send thanks to Attorney Thomas G. Wilkinson, Jr. of the Philadelphia office of Cozen & O'Connor for bringing this case to my attention.

Verdict in Favor of Dallas Cowboys Fan Injured At Eagles Game Reversed

In the case of Pearson v. Philadelphia Eagles, LLC, 3053 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Oct. 11, 2019 Murray, J., Pelligrini, J., and Strassburger, J.) (Op. by Murray, J.) (Strassburger, J. concurring), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and remanded for the entry of a judgment n.o.v. in favor of the defense in a premises liability case involving a fight at a Philadelphia Eagles verses Dallas Cowboys game. 

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff wore a Troy Aikman No. 8 jersey to a Cowboys versus Eagles game at Lincoln Financial Field game and was injured when he got into a scuffle in the men's room at halftime of a night time game.

Believe it or not, a Philadelphia County jury entered a substantial verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.  This appeal followed and as noted, the appellate court reversed.

The court noted that, absent a pre-existing duty, the general rule of law in Pennsylvania precludes holding a person liable for the criminal conduct of another. Rather, such a duty may arise from a voluntary undertaking to provide security. However, even providing secure is not deemed under Pennsylvania law to be a guarantee against all third-party criminal activity. 

The court noted that the undisputed evidence in this matter was that restroom fights were infrequent. As such, the court stated that, absent notice of frequent prior incidents on the premises, there was no duty on the landowner to post a guard at every restroom in the sports stadium.

The court additionally rejected any arguments by the Plaintiff that the scope of the Defendant’s undertaking of providing security measures should have been broader than it was.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion of Judge Strassburger can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.