Lawsuit Says Lowe’s Overlooked Warning Signs Before Scranton Co‑Worker’s Fatal Shooting

How the filing frames the tragedy and its immediate fallout

A Philadelphia law firm has filed a wrongful death lawsuit charging that Lowe’s (LOW) ignored a string of warning signs ahead of a fatal shooting at one of its stores in Scranton. The complaint, lodged by Ross Feller Casey, LLP on behalf of the victim’s family, says store personnel and managers knew — or should have known — about escalating threats and behavior by a coworker before the attack.

The suit frames the shooting as the predictable end of a pattern the law firm calls “clear and escalating.” It asks a court to hold Lowe’s responsible for failing to protect an employee on company property and seeks money damages for the family. For investors, the headline is straightforward: a major retailer now faces a public safety and legal test that could carry financial and reputational costs, even if those costs remain uncertain today.

What the complaint says happened in Scranton

The complaint lays out a timeline the plaintiffs say shows repeated troubling events culminating in the shooting. According to the filing, coworkers and supervisors were allegedly aware of incidents that raised safety concerns: heated arguments, verbal threats, and conduct the suit describes as aggressive or intimidating.

Rather than describe a single sudden outburst, the filing portrays a pattern. The law firm says reports reached store management but were not followed by meaningful intervention—such as removing the alleged attacker from the workplace, suspending him while the matter was investigated, or notifying law enforcement when threats were made.

The suit contends the fatal shooting happened during a work shift and on store property, which is central to the plaintiffs’ claim that Lowe’s owed a duty to protect its employees. It also alleges the company’s internal responses were slow or inadequate, that warnings were discounted, and that standard protocols were not enforced in the weeks and days before the victim was killed.

Because the complaint is the plaintiffs’ initial presentation of facts, those allegations come without the company’s detailed rebuttal. The filing, however, uses employee statements and internal reports it says support the claim that managers understood the risk but did not take effective steps to reduce it.

Alleged warning signs the suit says were missed

The law firm points to several specific types of behavior it says should have triggered action. Those include direct threats or menacing comments, recurring verbal confrontations between the individuals involved, and reports from other employees who felt unsafe. The complaint also refers to prior on‑site incidents that it says were not escalated through the store’s disciplinary or safety channels.

Beyond personal conduct, the plaintiffs allege failures in how the store documented and responded to complaints. The suit claims managers either failed to record complaints properly, downplayed their seriousness, or treated reports as routine personnel matters rather than potential criminal threats. The filing further criticizes what it calls a lack of timely communication between store leadership and higher levels of the company.

At the center of the complaint is an argument about foreseeability: the plaintiffs say the risk was visible and avoidable if Lowe’s had followed clear safety and HR steps. That claim is the hinge on which negligence and wrongful death theories will turn in court.

Legal claims and the remedies the plaintiffs seek

The suit brings standard civil claims in workplace shooting cases: wrongful death and negligence are the core causes of action. It also presses related theories such as negligent hiring, negligent retention and negligent supervision—alleging the company should not have kept the alleged shooter on the job or failed to control the risk once warning signs emerged.

The complaint asks for compensatory damages to cover the family’s losses, and it seeks punitive damages, arguing corporate conduct was reckless enough to warrant punishment. How a judge or jury will view those claims depends on proof of what managers knew, what steps were available under Lowe’s policies, and whether the company’s actions legally count as a failure to protect employees.

How Lowe’s might respond and what could change inside stores

The filing puts store safety and HR processes squarely under the microscope. Even before litigation plays out, companies in similar cases often review policies on workplace threats, employee reporting channels, security staffing and training for managers on how to escalate violent threats.

For Lowe’s, the immediate operational pressure will be to show it enforces a clear safety policy and that it took reasonable steps after the incident. That can mean updated guidance for store managers, new training modules, or tweaks to how complaints are logged and escalated. Any public steps the company takes will be watched closely by employees and local regulators.

Why investors should care and what to watch next

From an investor perspective, this lawsuit is worth watching but not necessarily game‑changing on its own. Large retailers carry insurance and face lawsuits regularly; individual cases rarely threaten the company’s national finances. However, outcomes matter: a high damages award, evidence of systemic failures, or follow‑on regulatory action could increase costs and hurt reputation in affected regions.

Investors should monitor a few things: how aggressively plaintiffs pursue damages, whether similar claims appear at other stores, any regulatory inquiries, and Lowe’s public actions to tighten safety and HR practices. For now, the story is a warning sign about operational risk rather than a clear signal of lasting financial harm.

Sources

• prnewswire.com