A dispute over whether a supermarket and its contracted security company were responsible for failing to prevent an assault on a customer has resulted in mixed rulings from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. The case centers on claims that store staff and security did not act quickly enough to stop an altercation between a cashier and a shopper, raising questions about employer liability and standards for negligence in public spaces.
The complaint was filed by Derrick Hinson in March 2017 in Essex County against ShopRite of East Orange, later joined by Village Supermarket of NJ, LP, and Sterling Security. The appellate decision was submitted on March 17, 2026, and decided on April 14, 2026.
According to court documents, the incident occurred on March 8, 2015. Hinson went shopping at ShopRite with his former fiancée and their two children. While waiting at checkout, an exchange between Hinson and cashier Terry McCoy escalated after McCoy questioned Hinson about his hat. When Hinson refused to answer or adjust his hat as requested, McCoy allegedly became angry and used profane language directed at Hinson. As tensions rose, both men engaged in a physical fight near the checkout area.
Testimony indicated that one of three Sterling Security guards present witnessed signs that an incident might occur when he saw Hinson remove his jacket and roll up his sleeves. This guard followed McCoy as he approached Hinson and radioed for backup but intervened only after the fight had started. Video footage captured the entire event. Following the altercation, McCoy was terminated for violating company policy by physically assaulting a customer.
Hinson’s lawsuit alleged vicarious liability, negligent supervision, and breach of duty to maintain safe premises against ShopRite. He also claimed that Sterling Security failed to provide adequate protection or intervene promptly during the confrontation.
Discovery in the case extended over two years with multiple extensions granted for gathering evidence. After discovery ended in March 2019—following more than 700 days—Hinson sought further extension but was denied by the court due to lack of exceptional circumstances or timely efforts to compel outstanding documents.
On June 21, 2019, ShopRite moved for summary judgment shortly before arbitration proceedings were set to begin. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of ShopRite after determining there was no evidence supporting claims of negligent hiring or supervision regarding McCoy’s actions. The court found that McCoy’s conduct fell outside the scope of employment because it was personal in nature rather than related to his job duties as a cashier.
Sterling Security also sought summary judgment based on Hinson’s failure to provide expert testimony regarding industry standards for security response times. However, this motion was initially denied by the trial court on grounds that jurors could use common knowledge to assess whether guards responded appropriately without expert input.
At trial against Sterling Security alone, following presentation of evidence including witness accounts and video footage, Sterling moved for a directed verdict arguing again that expert testimony was necessary to establish negligence standards specific to private security work. This time, the trial judge agreed with Sterling Security’s argument and dismissed Hinson’s claims with prejudice.
On appeal, judges Chase and Augostini reviewed four orders: denial of motions to reopen discovery; denial of reconsideration; summary judgment for ShopRite; and directed verdict for Sterling Security. The appellate panel affirmed denial of additional discovery time as well as summary judgment dismissing claims against ShopRite due to insufficient evidence linking management practices or hiring decisions directly to McCoy’s conduct.
However, regarding Sterling Security’s responsibility during the altercation, the appellate division vacated the directed verdict order. The opinion stated: “Expert testimony is not required here… jurors of average intelligence and experience do not need specialized or technical knowledge to determine whether the security guards were negligent in their speed in responding.” Citing precedent allowing lay juries to evaluate straightforward negligence cases without expert guidance when facts are within common understanding, they remanded this portion back for new trial proceedings against Sterling Security.
The ruling leaves open further litigation over whether private security personnel acted reasonably under urgent circumstances witnessed by shoppers inside ShopRite on March 8, 2015.
Attorneys listed include Tracey C. Hinson (for appellant Derrick Hinson) from Hinson Snipes LLP; Charles B. Carey (for respondent Village Supermarket of NJ) from Carey & Grossi PC; no brief was filed by Sterling Securities’ counsel according to records reviewed by Judges Chase and Augostini under Docket No. A-0835-24.
Source: A083524_Hinson_v_Shoprite_of_East_Orange_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
