Murder at Big Dawg's Lounge: Owner/Lessor Owes No Duty to Protect Victim from Criminal Act of Unknown Assailant
Eric Patterson was a security guard at Big Dawg’s lounge located in Gretna, Louisiana. On April 23, 2007, Eric was shot several times by an unknown assailant while standing in the parking lot in front of the lounge. Eric’s father filed a wrongful death action against, among others, the owners / lessors of the building in Patterson v. DeMatteo. Mr. Patterson alleged that the building owners were negligent in failing to recognize the foreseeability of criminal activity on the premises, failing to have an adequate security plan for dealing with the criminal activity and failing to have proper regard for the safety of others. The building owners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that they owed no duty to protect Eric from the criminal acts of an unknown assailant.
In support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the building owners introduced the following undisputed evidence: (1) Eric was shot by an unknown assailant, (2) the premise was leased to the bar owner at the time of the shooting and the building owners had no involvement in the operation of the bar, and (3) neither the building owners nor any of their employees or agents were present at the time of the shooting. In opposition to the motion, Mr. Patterson introduced the report of an expert in the areas of forensic criminology and security that outlined crime reports for the area where the bar was located and surrounding areas. Based on this evidence, Mr. Patterson’s expert concluded that the building owners had a duty to monitor criminal activity in the area and provide subsequent security measures. The trial court agreed that the building owners had no duty to prevent the actions of an unknown assailant and granted their motion for summary judgment.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. In reaching its decision, the appellate court, citing Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc. noted that generally there is no duty to protect others from the criminal activities of third persons. Rather, the duty to protect others from a criminal act arises only under the limited circumstances where the act is reasonably foreseeable to the business owner or when there is a voluntary assumption of the duty to provide protection. Applying these principles of law to the facts at hand, the court found that under the circumstances of the case: i.e., defendants were not the owners of the business, only the owners of the immovable property; defendants were not involved in any aspect of the business; they did not assume any liability of the actions of the business owners; and, they did not undertake or assume the duty to provide protection or security, defendants owed no duty to protect the patrons of the business from the criminal act of unknown assailant.
Take-Away: Premise owners / lessors who have no ownership or control of a business operating in their property generally will not be held responsible for the criminal activities of third persons.
