Robert L. Witman, v. Dollar General (Owners) and Dollar General (Store)

Robert L. Witman, v. Dollar General (Owners) and Dollar General (Store)

Civil Action-Law-Negligence-Duty of Business-Invitee-Restroom Key Provided to Customer-Customer Overdose in Restroom-Customer In Restroom Overnight-Injuries Sustained-Preliminary Objections-Legal Sufficiency-Existence of a Duty

Robert L. Witman (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in Negligence alleging that employees of Dollar General closed the store without ensuring that he had left the store after he had requested the key to use the restroom shortly before closing and experienced a drug overdose in the restroom.  Plaintiff alleges that he awoke in the restroom the next morning and called an ambulance, after which he was found to have low body temperature, kidney failure and pneumonia.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions exacerbated injuries from the overdose.  Defendants filed Preliminary Objections on the basis that Plaintiff failed to allege facts imposing a duty upon them to warn or to protect him from a drug overdose. 

1.  A Preliminary objection that seeks dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in a case in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish the right to relief. 

2.  To hold a defendant liable for negligence, the plaintiff must provide the following: (1) a legally recognized duty that the defendant conform to a standard of care; (2) a breach of the duty by the defendant; (3) causation between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damage to the plaintiff.

3.  The existence of a duty is a question of law.

4.  The determination of whether a duty exists in a case involves weighing of several discrete factors including: (1) the relationship between the parties; (2) the social utility of the actor’s conduct; (3) the nature of the risk imposed and foreseeability of the harm incurred; (4) the consequences of imposing a duty upon the actor; and (5) the overall public interest in the proposed solution.  

5.  A special relationship exists between a business and its invitee.

6.  Generally the determination of whether an individual is an invitee is a question for the finder of fact. 

7.  In determining whether a duty exists, it was foreseeable to the employee who gave the restroom key to Plaintiff that Plaintiff may have been in some sort of distress when the key was not returned and the restroom was not vacated by the time the store was closed for the night. 

8.  Plaintiff was owed a duty of care while on Defendants’ business premises that obliged Defendants to summon medical aid for Plaintiff even if Plaintiff caused his own situation through an accidental overdose. 

9.  It is a question of fact for the jury whether the duty of care was breached by Defendants’ failure to check the restroom to ensure Plaintiff had left the store and to summon help for him.

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2024-CV-1047, Opinion by John C. Tylwalk, President Judge, April 9, 2025.