Suzanne Figueroa Invitee Case Study

On May 12, 1983, Suzanne Figueroa was abducted at gunpoint in a child care center’s parking lot after dropping off her child. Subsequently, Figueroa was sexually assaulted and sliced with a knife. Suzanne and her husband, Luis Figueroa, sued North Park, the child center operator doing business at Evangelical Covenant Church, for negligent failure to provide adequate parking lot security. After the district court ruled against the Figueroas, they appealed the case arguing material issues of fact exist to prove the Evangelical Covenant Church owed them a duty of protection. The appeals court disagreed and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
At first glance, Figueroa would be considered an invitee because she was utilizing the parking lot

The second criterion declares a property must relate to a business conducted or condoned by the property owner. While the appeals court found it obvious that the North Park’s business was not connected to the parking lot, it was not obvious as to whether North Park allowed the activity “to be conducted on its land”. Furthermore, the third criterion is the leg of the test the Illinois court relied on the most to determine invitee status. Figueroa claimed the daycare center created a “public relations benefit” from acknowledging the use of the parking lot. However, the appeals court, as well as the district court, found without more substantiation this allegation is too vague to satisfy the third leg of the invitee test. Therefore, both the district court and the appeals court found Figueroa failed to stratify a single sector of the invitee test. Thus, Figueroa cannot be considered an invitee per Illinois

Figueroa might explore avenues of recovery as a licensee or even as a known trespasser. It is important to note North Park knew of the parking lot’s use by the daycare center for years prior. North Park did provide security by hiring off-duty police officers to patrol the parking lot. The Voluntary Undertaking Doctrine has allowed a plaintiff to recover even if the defendant conducted no direct action to assist the plaintiff. Although the defendant did provide security, one must question as to whether the court would consider this a direct attempt to assist the plaintiff. Even if Figueroa was a known trespasser this may imply the defendant had a fractional duty to protect the daycare users of the parking lot. However, being the defendant provided security for a parking up to that point was known to be reasonably safe, it is easily argued they acted with a reasonable standard of care. While Figueroa’ quest for recovery is understandable from a human standpoint, from a legal standpoint it is likely her attempts at recovery will be