Pennsylvania Superior Court Finds That Businesses May Be Liable For Attacks Against Customers That Occur Off-Premises

October 24, 2025

By: Carl L. Engel

The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in the case Borth v. Alpha Century Security, Inc., has just issued a watershed opinion in the area of premises-liability law, finding for the first time that a business owner may be liable for an attack on a customer, even if the attack occurred off of the business’s property. As long as it was reasonably foreseeable to the business while the victim and assailant were on its property that the attack would occur, the business must take reasonable measures to prevent it, such as by warning the customer. This duty to protect its customers is not excused simply because the attack took place just after the customer left the premises.

On December 16, 2017, Patricia Borth was shopping at a Rite Aid store in West Philadelphia, where she was approached by Albert Geiger. After speaking to her briefly, Mr. Gieger followed her around the store. Then, after observing her receive cash back at the register, he left the store without making a purchase and waited for her in the parking lot. When she emerged, he began to follow her.  When they were 734 feet away from the store, he brutally beat and robbed her.

The store’s security guard had seen Mr. Geiger following Ms. Borth around the aisles, yet had done nothing to prevent the attack, not even warning her about Mr. Geiger’s aggressive behavior. He admitted that he found Mr. Geiger’s behavior strange and suspicious, but he believed that he was not able to intervene once Mr. Geiger had left the store and was in the parking lot, even though the lot was a part of the business’s property. The guard also revealed that he had received no training at all from his employer, nor was he subject to any oversight.

On March 9, 2018, Ms. Borth filed a lawsuit, bringing a claim against Mr. Geiger for assault and battery, and negligence claims against Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc., as well as Alpha Century Security, Inc., and Security Resources of PA, Inc., which were the two companies responsible for hiring, training, and overseeing the security guard. On February 7, 2022, Rite Aid and the two security companies filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they cannot be found liable for an attack on a customer who had left the store’s premises. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the negligence claims against them. Ms. Borth appealed. (The Engel Law Firm participated in the appeal as her co-counsel.)

On August 1, 2025, the Superior Court reversed the trial court. The Superior Court observed that every property owner in Pennsylvania owes their business visitors a duty to protect them against all “foreseeable” dangers, i.e., any danger that “might be discovered with reasonable care.” The Superior Court found that there was a question of fact as to whether Mr. Geiger’s attack was foreseeable to the security guard, such that he should have taken reasonable precaution against it. In reaching its decision, the Superior Court noted that there were doubts as to whether he “was adequately trained, if at all, and whether he should have warned Ms. Borth, suggested she call for an escort, or acted on his suspicions in some manner.” The Superior Court also noticed that crime data showed that the store was in a high-crime neighborhood, such that the failures by Rite Aid and the security companies to protect her were particularly egregious.

The Superior Court’s decision makes clear that a business’s obligation to protect its customers is not extinguished simply because a danger does not manifest until the visitor has left the premises. To the contrary, the business still must take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of the visitor. The Superior Court observed that the security guard, for example, could have at least warned Ms. Borth that she was being followed, or could have advised her to call someone to come and escort her home. The security guard did not even go to the store’s parking lot to check whether Mr. Geiger was waiting for her, because he believed that he was not allowed to do so. These failures to take reasonable safety precautions at the store are not absolved simply because the attack occurred just after Ms. Borth had left the property. To avoid liability for attacks on their customers by other visitors to their properties, businesses, therefore, must ensure that their personnel are trained to address situations where individuals are demonstrating strange and aggressive behavior toward their customers, and to take reasonable measures to warn their customers or to otherwise protect them from aggressors.