Varone v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., Case No. 4D2024-1428 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 18, 2026)
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order granting summary judgment to Publix in a negligent‑security action, holding that Publix was not required to anticipate an active‑shooter incident at one of its Florida stores. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that Publix had a legal duty to protect against this third‑party criminal act because it was foreseeable, relying primarily on a nationwide increase in active‑shooter events. Publix responded that the number and nature of reported incidents at the store in question were minimal and did not make the gunman’s conduct reasonably foreseeable.
In its amicus brief, FJRI argued that the plaintiff’s theory—that Publix should have foreseen and prevented such an attack—would have far‑reaching, unintended consequences by effectively transforming businesses of all sizes and levels of sophistication into insurers of their patrons’ safety. The Fourth District’s decision is consistent with that concern, emphasizing that while Publix has a duty to guard against criminal attacks by third parties, that duty arises only to the extent such attacks are reasonably foreseeable. Here, there was no evidence of prior batteries against a person, let alone prior shootings, within the Publix store at issue.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Levine underscored FJRI’s points, explaining that “[i]f large entities were determined to have a duty based on the facts of this case, then eventually all smaller entities would be understood to have foreseen the same risks . . . [C]onsequences of such magnitude, it would seem, are best determined by the people through their representatives in the legislative branch and not by judicial fiat.”
FJRI was represented by William W. Large and Tiffany Roddenberry of Holland & Knight LLP.