A District Court has dismissed a negligence lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation after a customer claimed he was attacked at one of its gas stations. The court ruled that Costco did not have a duty to protect the customer from the criminal acts of a third party, as the attack was not foreseeable. This decision could impact how similar cases are handled in the future.
The case, known as Carthen v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, was filed by Terry L. Carthen in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Carthen alleged that he was attacked by an unknown individual while purchasing fuel at a Costco gas station on October 25, 2024. He claimed that the attack caused him physical injuries and emotional trauma, leading him to seek $2 million in damages. Carthen argued that Costco failed to maintain a safe environment for its customers, which directly led to his injuries.
The incident occurred around 4:07 p.m. when Carthen was reportedly struck in the leg with a crowbar by the assailant. After the attack, the assailant fled the scene but was later apprehended by Metropolitan Police and charged with simple assault and possession of a prohibited weapon. Carthen's lawsuit claimed that Costco's negligence in providing adequate security and safety measures at the gas station contributed to the attack.
Carthen's complaint included multiple allegations against Costco, stating that the company failed to provide adequate security personnel, monitor the premises, and respond to known threats. He argued that these failures constituted a breach of Costco's duty to maintain a safe environment for its customers.
The case was moved to the District Court on July 30, 2025, after Costco filed a notice of removal. On August 6, 2025, Costco filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it did not owe Carthen a duty to protect him from the criminal acts of an independent actor because there was no special relationship between the parties and the attack was not foreseeable.
In her ruling, Judge Amy Berman Jackson stated that while Carthen was a customer at the time of the attack, the court found that Costco did not have a duty to protect him from the actions of a third party. The court emphasized that a business has a duty to its patrons, but this duty does not extend to protecting them from unforeseeable criminal acts.
The court ruled, "Because plaintiff has not pled facts supporting a reasonable inference that Costco owed him a duty to protect him from the criminal acts of a third party, defendant’s motion to dismiss will be GRANTED."
Judge Jackson noted that for a premises liability claim based on a criminal act by a third party, the plaintiff must establish heightened foreseeability. This means that there must be evidence that the defendant was aware or should have been aware that a criminal act was likely to occur. In Carthen's case, the court found that he did not provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that Costco was on notice of the risk of an attack at its gas station.
The ruling highlighted that a mere assertion that a gas station is open to the public and frequented by customers is not enough to establish heightened foreseeability. Carthen's claims about the general risks associated with gas stations did not meet the legal standard required to hold Costco liable for the attack.
The court's decision could have broader implications for future negligence cases involving businesses and their responsibilities to protect customers from criminal acts. It reinforces the idea that businesses are not automatically liable for crimes committed by third parties unless there is a clear, heightened foreseeability of such incidents.
Moving forward, this ruling may influence how similar cases are approached, particularly in terms of establishing the necessary duty of care in negligence claims. Businesses may feel reassured that they are not liable for every crime that occurs on their premises, especially if there is no evidence of prior incidents that would indicate a foreseeable risk.
As for what’s next, Carthen could potentially appeal the ruling. However, details about any plans for an appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case will likely be watched closely by other businesses and legal experts as it may set a precedent for how negligence claims are evaluated in the context of criminal acts.