United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
ALAN E. ROBLES, Plaintiff,
QUIKTRIP CORPORATION, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant QuikTrip
Corporation's (the “Defendant”) Motion for
Summary Judgment .
undisputed facts, construed in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff Alan E. Robles (“Plaintiff”), show that
on the evening of September 6, 2015, Plaintiff, his brother
Cesar Robles (“Cesar”), his brother-in-law Victor
Sanchez (“Victor”), and Victor's cousins
Everet Delgado (“Ever”) and Gustavo Delgado
(“Gustavo”), visited the QuikTrip gas station
located at 93 Upper Riverdale Road in Riverdale, Georgia (the
“QuickTrip”). ([73.2] ¶¶ 3, 5-6). They
were all in a white Chevrolet Avalanche (“truck”)
driven by Cesar. ([73.2] ¶ 5). Plaintiff sat in the
front passenger seat. Id. Victor and his two cousins
sat in the back. ([73.2] ¶ 5). Plaintiff does not
remember going into the QuikTrip to make a purchase and did
not intend to purchase anything at the convenience store.
([73.2] ¶ 88).
pulled up to the gas pump and began filling up with gas while
Victor, Ever, and Gustavo went into the store to purchase
beer. ([73.2] ¶¶ 6-7). When Gustavo returned from
the store he refused to get back into Cesar's truck and,
instead, walked to the front of the store. ([73.2]
¶¶ 9, 10). Victor and Ever left the truck to
persuade Gustavo to return and Cesar pulled his truck to the
front of the store. ([73.2] ¶¶ 11, 12).
Victor, and Ever spent approximately fifteen minutes trying
to persuade Gustavo to get into the truck. Plaintiff tried to
convince his cousin Victor to do the same. ( ¶ 17).
There was some arguing with raised voices and physical
pushing and shoving. ([73.2] ¶ 18). At one point,
Gustavo, Victor, and Ever went into the store where Gustavo
asked QuickTrip employee Rodtrese Jones for a phone to call a
cab. ( ¶ 21).
they came out of the store, they continued to argue about
leaving. ([73.2] ¶ 22). Cesar told Victor he was going
to drive off, leaving Victor and his cousins at the store.
Ever became angry, opened the door of the truck and pointed a
gun at Cesar. ([73.2] ¶ 26).
this happened, Plaintiff was standing in front of the
driver's door to Ever's immediate left. ([73.2]
¶ 27). Plaintiff disputes whether he saw Ever
brandishing the gun, or even whether he could see the
argument taking place. ([73.2] ¶¶ 19, 28-30). At
Plaintiff's deposition, he was shown surveillance footage
and testified as follows:
Q (counsel): Okay. At this point you would have known that
the gentleman in the black shirt had a gun; right
A (Plaintiff): Yes. I would have known at that moment; cause
I'm look-it looks like I'm looking forward.
Q (counsel): Well, here at 11:02:53 it looks like you're
looking directly at the gun; correct?
A (Plaintiff): Yes. Like straight at him with the gun. . . .
Q (counsel): Watching that surveillance video, do you think
you should have foreseen this incident when you first saw
A (Plaintiff): Yes. I would have immediately thought I was -
I'm in danger.
([73.2] ¶¶ 28, 32). Plaintiff could not recall
whether he knew, prior to this incident, that Victor was
carrying a gun. ([73.2] ¶ 31).
moments after Ever drew the gun, Plaintiff was outside the
QuikTrip in the vicinity of Ever. Surveillance footage shows
that he attempted to leave the area, but was unable to
retreat toward the store because Ever stepped into his path.
( ¶¶ 33-34, 38, 40).
then pointed his gun at Cesar, and pulled him from the
vehicle. Victor and Cesar tried to calm the situation, but
Ever continued to threaten to shoot someone in the group.
([73.2] ¶¶ 35-37). The surveillance footage shows
that Plaintiff and Cesar again tried to retreat to the store.
( ¶ 40). Ever again prohibited Plaintiff, but not
Cesar, from entering the store with his gun still drawn.
( ¶ 42). Ever then turned and approached Plaintiff,
pointed his gun at Plaintiff's side, and walked him
towards the truck. ([73.2] ¶¶ 45, 46). Victor,
Gustavo, and Ever engaged in more pushing and shoving.
([73.2] ¶ 47). Plaintiff did not get involved in the
altercation. ( ¶ 98). Plaintiff testified that his
failure to engage may have been due to “shock” or
he may have “froze or freaked out.” (
then shot Plaintiff in the neck. ([73.2] ¶ 52). Hearing
the gunfire, Cesar emerged from the QuikTrip store to see
what happened. He returned and went back in, telling the
QuikTrip employees to call the police. ([73.2] ¶¶
54-56). The bullet hit Plaintiff's neck, shoulder, and
spinal cord, leaving him partially paralyzed on his left
side. ( ¶ 97).
Prior Incidents at the QuikTrip Location
following violent incidents were reported to have occurred at
the QuikTrip between late 2012 and mid-2015:
Subjects were overheard in QuikTrip parking lot
talking about shooting someone. ( ¶ 23).
Public Drunkenness, Loitering, Obstruction of
Subjects in QuikTrip parking lot were reported as
fighting, had physical signs of fighting with one
another, were intoxicated, and were aggressive to
officers. ( ¶ 23).
Criminal Attempted Armed Robbery
This incident involved an employee of QuikTrip
walking to his vehicle when two suspects attempted to
rob him at knifepoint. ([73.2] ¶ 78).
Robbery by Force
Juvenile victim was assaulted and robbed by two
subjects as he was leaving the QuikTrip. Victim had
bruising & swelling where the assailants punched
him in the face. The subjects searched the
victim's pockets before leaving the scene. (
Armed Robbery & Aggravated Assault
The QuikTrip store was robbed at gunpoint. ([73.2]
¶ 80). Store manager, Reubin Harrison had
knowledge of this incident. ( 41).
Gunshots in the parking lot were reported. ( at
There was no incident report generated, it is unknown
whether this was a physical or verbal altercation,
and no weapons were reported. ([73.2] ¶ 82).
Firearms discharged on QuikTrip premises. (
Subject armed with a gun stole the money from the
QuikTrip registers. ( ¶ 23).
Robbery by Sudden Snatching
Subject entered store and stole an employee's
purse from behind the counter. Another subject stole
cola cases while the victim confronted the subject
with her purse in the parking lot. ([73.2] ¶
Loitering, Robbery by Intimidation, Violation of GA
Suspicious males were loitering on a sidewalk.
Investigation revealed that earlier that day, they
had followed a juvenile into the store and robbed him
of his cell phone as he entered the parking lot.
( ¶ 23).
18, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Verified Complaint for Damages
in the State Court of Fulton County [1.1]. In it, Plaintiff
alleges three claims of negligence based on premises
liability, failure to make safe, “misleading the
Plaintiff, ” a claim for negligence per se, and one for