Industry News
Security Guard Shot and Killed
Facts: On Apr. 23, 2007, Eric Patterson was working as a security guard at a bar. Patterson was standing in the parking lot outside the bar’s entrance when he was shot and killed by an unknown assailant. Patterson’s father filed a premises liability lawsuit against the owners of the building alleging that the owners failed to foresee that criminal activity would occur and failed to provide adequate security measures. The building owners, who leased the premises to the bar operator, filed a motion for summary judgment arguing they could not be held liable for the incident because they did not know or have reason to know that a third party would commit a random criminal act outside the building that they owned but leased to others. The trial court granted the building owners’ motion for summary judgment. Patterson appealed.
Decision: A premises owner does not have the general duty to protect individuals from a third party’s criminal activities. Yet, premises owners and occupiers do have a duty to use reasonable care to protect individuals from those criminal acts which are reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances. In fulfillment of this duty, premises owners and occupiers can be required to provide increased security measures in the absence of previous similar violent crimes. Here, the owners of the building were not the owners of the business that operated its bar on the property. The premises owners were not involved in any aspect of the business and did not assume the duty to provide security for the building while it was under the lease with the bar owner. In fact, the building owner did not have any control over the property or responsibility for the provision of security measures at the time of Patterson’s death. The court of appeals determined that according to the facts of the case, the building owners were not required to provide protection for the property and could not be held liable for the failure to do so. The court of appeals held that the trial did not err in its decision and accordingly affirmed the decision granting summary judgment in favor of the premises owner.
Implications: Though a premises owner can generally be held liable for failing to protect against foreseeable third-party crime, this rule is not applicable to circumstances where the property is owned by an individual but leased and relinquished to a second party business owner. Where the terms of the lease require the business owner to maintain the premises, the property owner will most often be relieved of any liability for incidents that take place during the length of the lease. Patterson v. DeMatteo, No. 09-CA-326 (Louisiana Court of Appeals Oct. 27, 2009). Source: Security Law Newsletter, published monthly by Strafford Publications, Atlanta, GA. www.straffordpub.com, phone: 800-926-7926 ext. 10 or email: custserv@straffordpub.com.