Davis v. Regency Lane, LLC, No. 1747, September Term, 2019 (January 28, 2021), Opinion by Graeff, J.
The crime situation at the Regency Lane apartment complex in Capitol Heights was only getting worse. From October 2013 to December 2016, officers from the Prince George’s County Police Department responded to service calls involving assaults, robberies, fights, drug related activity, reports of gunshots and shootings. Davis, No. 1747 at 4-5. There was a black iron fence surrounding the property, but it was left unsecured, providing an access point to the rear of the complex where no cameras were installed. Id. at 4.
Regency’s owner, Avi Bernstein, was informed by the property manager on multiple occasions about the criminal activity occurring near the complex, but it is unclear if increased security measures were taken. Id at 5-6. On October 30, 2016, two teenagers were shot and killed outside an apartment owned by Regency Lane, LLC (“Regency”), in Capitol Heights, Maryland. Id at 1.
The parents of the decedents filed suit against Regency, alleging “that Regency negligently failed to exercise reasonable care in providing adequate security measures on the premises to protect tenants and invitees from foreseeable criminal activity”. Id.
At trial, Regency filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that: (1) an owner of real property owes a duty of care only to invitees, and the decedents were not invitees at the time of the shooting; (2) even if the decedents were invitees, appellants failed to show that Regency owed a duty to the decedents. Regency went on to argue that appellants had not produced evidence to render the incident in question reasonably foreseeable and there had not been evidence showing a dangerous physical condition within Regency’s control; and (3) no evidence was presented showing how the allegedly inadequate security measures caused the decedents’ death. Id. at 6-7. The circuit court ultimately granted Regency’s motion on the second and third grounds. Id. at 12.
On appeal, among other things, Regency argued that the shootings were not a foreseeable harm that it had a duty to prevent. Id. at 16. Specifically, Regency contended that although past criminal activity can create a duty, it must be similar in nature to the crime at issue. Id. Thus, Regency argues, even if it had full knowledge of all the criminal activity occurring since 2013, the crimes were not sufficiently similar to a “triple homicide” to warrant finding a duty of care. Id.
The parents of the decedents, however, asserted, among other things, that Regency had knowledge of the increasing criminal activity on the property, and Regency’s failure to address it created a dangerous condition. Id. at 15. Specifically, they claim “the deaths were a foreseeable result of the escalating crime and Regency’s inaction”. Id.
COSA distinguished the instant case from two prior cases where no duty to provide security was found: Moore v. Jimel, Inc., 147 Md. App. 336, 347-49 (2002) and Smith v. Dodge Plaza Ltd. P’Ship, 148 Md. App. 335, 345-46 (2002). In Moore, a woman was assaulted in the restroom of a bar. Moore, 147 Md. App. at 337. The Court found there was no evidence presented showing that a crime was previously committed against a customer at the bar. Since there was no foreseeability of the risk of crime, no special duty was created. Id. at 349. In Smith, a patron was stabbed at a nightclub. Smith, 148 Md. App. at 337. The Court found Smith produced no evidence that the owner had actual notice of prior criminal assaults. Id. at 340. Although two instances of violence within the nightclub within the two years prior to the stabbing was presented, COSA found the evidence legally insufficient to put an owner on “constructive notice of a danger to patrons of criminal injury within the nightclub.” Id. at 346.
In this case, by contrast, COSA found the evidence of repeated instances of dangerous criminal activity on the premises to be sufficient to find that Regency knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on the premises. Davis, No. 1747 at 25. Knowledge of the service calls to the police (which reveal reports of shootings, assaults, and drug activity), combined with the concerns shared by the property manager, was sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence on notice that a shooting could occur on the property in the absence of additional security measures. Id. at 25.
Accordingly, COSA held that the circuit court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that Regency did not owe a duty to the decedents. Davis, No. 1747 at 27. Ultimately, however, COSA affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, since “appellants failed to show inadequate security measures caused the decedents’ deaths”. Id. at 29.
-John Thompson, Associate Attorney
No comments:
Post a Comment