Coleman v. Judson — Waffle House won summary judgment because the third-party crime was not sufficiently foreseeable

Case
Denisha Coleman v. Tyler Judson, Waffle House, Incorporated d/b/a Waffle House, and ABC Insurance Company
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Judge
Theriot; Greene; Edwards
Date Decided
October 22, 2026
Docket No.
2026 CW 0664
Topics
Premises Liability; Third-Party Crime; Foreseeability; Summary Judgment
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Denisha Coleman sued Tyler Judson, Waffle House, Incorporated d/b/a Waffle House, and ABC Insurance Company in Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court. Her claims against Waffle House arose from a criminal act committed by a third party on the business’s premises.

After the district court issued a May 12, 2026 judgment denying Waffle House the relief it sought, Waffle House applied to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, for supervisory review. The appellate court considered whether Waffle House was entitled to summary judgment under Louisiana’s duty-risk framework.

The Court’s Holding

The First Circuit granted Waffle House’s writ application and held that the company was entitled to summary judgment. The court explained that business owners generally have no duty to protect patrons from third parties’ criminal acts, but must implement reasonable protective measures when such acts are foreseeable.

The court concluded that the particular risk Coleman encountered was not sufficiently foreseeable or easily associated with Waffle House’s duty to maintain reasonably safe premises. Because the risk fell outside the scope of that duty, the court reversed the district court’s May 12, 2026 judgment, rendered summary judgment for Waffle House, and dismissed Coleman’s claims against it.

Key Takeaways

  • Louisiana courts apply the duty-risk analysis when assessing a business’s liability to a patron for a third party’s criminal conduct.
  • A business’s duty to take reasonable protective measures arises when the criminal conduct is foreseeable.
  • The First Circuit found Coleman’s particular risk insufficiently foreseeable and dismissed her claims against Waffle House on summary judgment.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces that a criminal act occurring on business premises does not, by itself, place resulting injuries within the business owner’s duty. A plaintiff must establish that the particular criminal risk was sufficiently foreseeable or closely associated with the duty to maintain reasonably safe premises.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top