U.S. District Court Judge Walter Rice ruled that the wrongful death count against Walmart be dismissed. But the judge also ruled in a 38-page opinion filed today that trial against Walmart will continue on claims of negligence, premises liability, survivorship and loss of consortium.
SECURITY VIDEO shows moments leading up to John Crawford shooting
“In the court’s view, based on the evidence presented, a reasonable jury could find that Wal-Mart breached its duty to take reasonable precautions to protect its customers from foreseeable dangers,” Rice wrote. “Although Wal-Mart was not required by law to secure the MK-177 pellet rifles, a reasonable jury could find that it should have done so.”
RELATED: Judge rules most of Crawford suit against Beavercreek can go to trial
Rice also found it reasonable that a jury could rule Walmart had a duty to return the item to its package and that Walmart took too much time to warn Crawford that carrying such an item was dangerous after four employees knew about it.
The judge also ruled a reasonable jury could find negligence on Walmart’s part because it knew the MK-177 could be confused with an AR-15 style firearm regardless of the warning on the box or Ohio’s open-carry laws.
Rice noted that the MK-177 box, which was redesigned to take out staples and be easy to open, includes a warning that states, “DO NOT BRANDISH OR DISPLAY THIS AIRGUN IN PUBLIC - IT MAY CONFUSE PEOPLE AND MAY BE A CRIME. POLICE AND OTHERS MAY THINK IT IS A FIREARM.”
RELATED: Judge to decide if Walmart, Beavercreek go to trial in John Crawford III’s death
Rice also wrote that a Walmart employee saw Crawford and was concerned that someone may mistake the pellet rifle for a real firearm. That employee called another worker for management to be notified so they could locate Crawford.
Rice wrote that two Walmart managers walked together but did not find him. One manager testified that because she did not believe that Crawford posed any immediate danger, she did not treat this as an urgent situation.
Rice cited case law that as a “business invitee,” Crawford was owed by Walmart a duty to use care not to injure him by negligent activities; a duty to warn him of latent dangers known; and a duty to inspect the premises to discover dangerous conditions and take reasonable precautions to protect him from foreseeable dangers.
RELATED: Crawford attorneys say Beavercreek experts implicate officer in shooting
Rice wrote that in its motion for summary judgment, Walmart argued that because plaintiffs contend Williams’ conduct was “criminal in nature, plaintiffs must be held to a higher standard to prove Walmart had a duty to protect Crawford from the criminal act of a third party.
Rice wrote that Walmart’s own retail expert admitted it had a duty to do a risk assessment of pellet rifles and take action to protect customers and that the MK-177 looks like a real rifle.
The expert “found that Wal-Mart did conduct such an assessment and concluded that there was no risk to displaying an unsecured pellet rifle on the shelf,” Rice wrote, quoting testimony.
RELATED: Officer who fired fatal shots thought Crawford “was about to” point a weapon at him
Walmart argued it was not foreseeable that in an open-carry state a police officer would shoot and kill a customer carrying a pellet rifle and that a 911 caller would falsely report Crawford was loading the rifle and pointing it at people, Rice wrote.
Rice also wrote that two months before Crawford was shot, Walmart got an email from a Walmart customer in Minnesota who was concerned about “a very big safety issue” about unsecured display of air rifles and ammunition.
The judge recounted the email that alleged two young boys loaded an air rifle and pointed it the customer. The man who emailed asked that air rifles be secured in the same manner as real firearms.
RELATED: Officer: Shooting Crawford without giving him time to respond was OK
Rice ruled that Walmart had a duty “to take reasonable precautions to protect its business invitees from the dangers associated with the unsecured display of MK-177 pellet rifles.”
Rice sustained Walmart’s request for summary judgment for a wrongful death because “although Wal-Mart’s alleged negligence may have created the situation that led to Crawford’s death, Wal-Mart’s alleged ‘provocation’ is simply too attenuated to support a wrongful death claim under Ohio law.”
A Greene County special grand jury in 2014 cleared Williams of any criminal charges. A federal civil right investigation against Beavercreek police was closed in 2017 when it was determined they did not have enough evidence to go forward.
RELATED: Beavercreek officer who shot John Crawford III back on ‘full duty’
Shopper Angela Williams died of a heart condition after she tried to run out of the Walmart that night after the officer’s shots. Her family did not take any legal action.
Attorneys for Crawford’s family and Walmart will be contacted for comment. We will update this story if and when they respond.
RELATED: Williams used force nearly 10 times the department average
RELATED: Feds won’t charge Beavercreek officer in Walmart shooting
RELATED: Prosecutor said case was ‘tragic’ and ‘perfect storm of circumstances’
MORE: Read other stories from Mark Gokavi
SOCIAL MEDIA: Follow Mark Gokavi on Twitter or Facebook
DOWNLOAD OUR FREE MOBILE APPS