Michael Bonner v. Trustmark Corporation ( 2018 )

Case: 17-13800 Date Filed: 03/02/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13800
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cv-00613-DAB
MICHAEL BONNER,
ANGELA BONNER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
TRUSTMARK CORPORATION,
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(March 2, 2018)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-13800 Date Filed: 03/02/2018 Page: 2 of 4
Early one morning, Michael Bonner went to the Trustmark Bank in Opelika,
Alabama, to make an after-hours deposit on behalf of his employer. The after-
hours deposit box is a walk-up box attached to the front of the bank. In its security
manual, Trustmark includes minimum lighting standards for after-hours deposit
boxes. That morning the Opelika branch was not in compliance with those
standards. As Bonner approached the box, an unknown man robbed and shot him.
Bonner and his wife brought a negligence claim against Trustmark in federal
district court based on diversity of citizenship, and the bank moved for summary
judgment. The district court found that Trustmark did not have a duty to protect
Bonner from the unforeseeable criminal act of a third party and entered summary
judgment in Trustmark’s favor. This is the Bonners’ appeal.
We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. See Holly v. Clairson
Indus., LLC, 492 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2007). “Summary judgment is
appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of the
Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2001).
Under Alabama law a store owner has no initial duty to protect customers
from the unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties that take place on his property.
Broadus v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 677 So. 2d 199, 203 (Ala. 1996). But if an
owner chooses to act, despite having no duty to do so, then he must act with due
2
Case: 17-13800 Date Filed: 03/02/2018 Page: 3 of 4
care. Herston v. Whitesell, 374 So. 2d 267, 270 (Ala. 1979); see also Raburn v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 776 So. 2d 137, 139 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (“Alabama law
recognizes the principle that liability to third parties can result from the negligent
performance of a voluntary undertaking.”). The Bonners argue that Trustmark
voluntarily assumed a duty of care when it adopted minimum lighting requirements
for after-hours deposit boxes.1 We disagree.
The Alabama Supreme Court has held that a company does not assume a
legal duty by merely including safety requirements in a company manual.
See Martin ex rel. Martin v. Goodies Distribution, 695 So. 2d 1175, 1179 (Ala.
1997) (concluding that a company’s “act of including several safety precautions in
the list of operating procedures . . . did not amount to the voluntary assumption of a
legal duty”). 2 Because Trustmark did not voluntarily assume a duty of care, the
district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the bank.
1
The Bonners brought claims for failure to warn, gross negligence, wantonness,
recklessness, and loss of consortium. They also argued that the court should extend Alabama
common law premises liability to find that Trustmark owed Michael Bonner a duty. The
Bonners raise none of those arguments on appeal, and as a result have abandoned them. AT&T
Broadband v. Tech Commc’ns., Inc., 381 F.3d 1309, 1320 n.14 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Issues not
raised on appeal are considered abandoned.”).
2
Contrary to the Bonners’ assertions, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals did not hold
differently in Raburn v. Wal-Mart. In that case the court held that a company voluntarily
assumed a duty of care in apprehending shoplifters when it authorized its employees to stop
suspects in its “Shoplifter Apprehension Policy.” Raburn, 776 So. 2d at 140. But that duty of
care arose only when the employee, acting under the authority granted by the policy, chose to
detain two suspected shoplifters. Id. The company owed its customer a duty of care not because
it adopted a security policy, but because the employee voluntarily acted and that act was
authorized by the company.
3
Case: 17-13800 Date Filed: 03/02/2018 Page: 4 of 4
AFFIRMED.
4