Caseflicks

Texas Supreme Court • 1985

Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.

690 S.W.2d 546 | 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 384 | 1985 Tex. LEXIS 852

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that an ordinance requiring vacant apartments to be secured can create a duty to the public, and evidence of an unsecured unit plus prior crime can create jury questions on causation and foreseeability even when a third party commits the assault.

Background

Ten-year-old R.M.V. was abducted from a sidewalk outside the Landmark Apartments, where she lived, and taken across the street to the Chalmette Apartments. Her assailant took her directly to a vacant Chalmette unit, raped her, left her in a closet, and disappeared. R.M.V. was neither a resident nor a guest of Chalmette.

The vacant unit was unsecured and badly deteriorated: its front door was off its hinges, windows were broken, and the unit was empty, dirty, and filled with debris. A Dallas ordinance required owners to keep doors and windows of vacant structures securely closed to prevent unauthorized entry. The apartment owner acknowledged that unsecured units could encourage vagrants to occupy them, and the management company's president testified that securing vacant apartments helped prevent this kind of crime.

Police reports reflected numerous crimes at Chalmette during the two years before the rape, including aggravated robberies, aggravated assaults, attempted murder, burglaries, thefts, and criminal mischief. R.M.V.'s mother sued Chalmette's owner, Brett Davis, and manager, Mr. Property Management Company, alleging that their failure to secure the unit breached a duty of care and proximately caused the rape. The trial court granted their summary-judgment motion, and the court of appeals affirmed, treating R.M.V. as a trespasser and holding the rape unforeseeable. The Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded for trial.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment under Texas's summary-judgment standard.

Holding

No. The defendants did not conclusively negate material fact issues concerning breach of duty and proximate cause.

Reasoning

A summary-judgment movant must establish both that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In reviewing the motion, the court must take evidence favorable to the nonmovant as true, indulge every reasonable inference in that party's favor, and resolve doubts in that party's favor.

Applying that standard, the Court concluded that the summary-judgment record permitted reasonable inferences supporting Nixon's claims. The disputed questions concerning violation of the ordinance, causal connection, and foreseeability therefore had to be resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment.

Issue #2

Whether Chalmette's owner and manager owed R.M.V. a duty despite her lack of consent to enter the property.

Holding

Yes. The Dallas ordinance supplied the applicable duty, and R.M.V.'s status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee did not control.

Reasoning

The Dallas ordinance required an owner to keep doors and windows of vacant structures securely closed to prevent unauthorized entry. The Court treated this legislatively imposed standard of conduct as defining what a reasonably prudent person must do under these circumstances.

An unexcused violation of a statute or ordinance is negligence per se when the enactment was designed to protect the class of persons to which the injured person belongs. The ordinance reasonably was understood to deter criminal activity by eliminating conspicuous opportunities for crime; the management company's president expressly recognized that securing vacant units served that purpose.

Because the ordinance protected the general public, not merely invitees and licensees, R.M.V. fell within its protected class. She also committed no wrong by being forcibly brought onto the premises. Thus, traditional premises-liability classifications were irrelevant, and the evidence created a fact issue as to whether defendants violated the ordinance without a valid excuse.

Issue #3

Whether a fact issue existed on cause in fact between the failure to secure the vacant apartment and R.M.V.'s rape.

Holding

Yes. A jury could reasonably find that the unsecured unit was a substantial factor in bringing about the rape and that the harm would not have occurred without it.

Reasoning

Cause in fact requires that the negligent act or omission be a substantial factor in producing the injury and that the injury would not have occurred but for that act or omission. The Court was required to evaluate this evidence in the light most favorable to R.M.V.

R.M.V.'s affidavit stated that her assailant took her directly to a vacant Chalmette apartment. That evidence supported an inference that the assailant knew of the easily accessible, isolated, unsecured unit and selected the time and place of the abduction in order to use it to commit the assault.

The Court distinguished City of Mobile v. Largay, where the assailant resorted to an unsecured building only after failing to drive away in the victim's car. Here, by contrast, the evidence allowed an inference that the vacant apartment was part of the assailant's plan from the outset.

Issue #4

Whether a fact issue existed on foreseeability, or whether the assailant's criminal conduct was a superseding cause as a matter of law.

Holding

Yes. The evidence permitted a jury to find that violent criminal conduct was foreseeable, so the assailant's crime did not conclusively break the chain of causation.

Reasoning

Although a third party's intentional crime ordinarily is a superseding cause, it does not relieve a negligent actor of liability when the crime is a foreseeable result of the negligence. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 448, criminal conduct does not supersede liability if the actor realized or should have realized that its negligence created an opportunity likely to be used by a third party to commit a crime.

The record contained extensive evidence of prior crimes at Chalmette, including violent and assaultive offenses, as well as evidence that vagrants frequented the area. Specific prior crimes on or near a property can raise a fact issue on whether later criminal activity was foreseeable.

The Court emphasized that defendants need not have foreseen a rape in particular. Foreseeability requires only that injury of the general character suffered might reasonably have been anticipated to a person situated as R.M.V. was. Given the prior crimes and the unsecured vacant unit, a jury could find that further violent criminal activity was foreseeable.

Concurrences

Justice Kilgarlin

Reasoning

Justice Kilgarlin agreed that the judgment should be reversed, but criticized the majority for resolving the duty question solely through the Dallas ordinance. In his view, the case exposed the irrationality of forcing a ten-year-old girl who was dragged onto property by a rapist into the legal category of trespasser.

He would abandon the traditional invitee-licensee-trespasser framework and impose a general duty on landowners to exercise ordinary care under all the circumstances. Those classifications, he argued, were feudal remnants that produce arbitrary and harsh outcomes by making a victim's protection depend on the technical purpose of her entry.

Justice Kilgarlin noted that many courts had moved toward a unitary reasonable-care standard because the common-law categories had generated confusion and a growing set of exceptions. An entrant's status could remain relevant to what reasonable care requires, but it should not determine whether a duty exists in the first place.

He would preserve the existing limited duty for a person who trespasses with intent to commit a crime. But R.M.V., forcibly brought onto the premises and guilty of no wrongdoing, illustrated why the broad classifications should not bar a negligence claim.

Justice Spears

Reasoning

Justice Spears also agreed with reversal but would not make R.M.V.'s protection depend entirely on the existence of a municipal ordinance or on whether the apartments happened to lie within city limits. He would recognize an exception to rigid application of the premises-liability classifications for a child forcibly dragged onto property by a rapist.

Under his proposed exception, defendants would have a duty to act as reasonably prudent persons in maintaining their property safely in light of the likelihood and seriousness of injury and the burden of avoiding the risk. This standard would not make the landowner an insurer or require unreasonable protective measures.

Unlike Justice Kilgarlin, Justice Spears would retain the traditional classifications in most cases. He believed they provided stability and predictability in allocating losses, and he was concerned that wholesale replacement with an unrestricted reasonable-care standard could produce inconsistent jury determinations.

The majority's ordinance-based approach, he observed, decided this case without either abolishing the classifications or formally creating a broader exception. He would reserve the larger doctrinal question until Texas could assess the practical effects of the single-standard approach in other jurisdictions.

Dissents

Justice McGee

Reasoning

Justice McGee would have affirmed summary judgment because, in his view, defendants' failure to secure the vacant apartment was neither a cause in fact of the rape nor a foreseeable cause of it. The unknown assailant's criminal conduct was instead an unforeseeable, superseding cause as a matter of law.

On cause in fact, he rejected the majority's inference from the assailant's taking R.M.V. directly to the vacant unit. He reasoned that an unsecured apartment was merely a fortuitously available location and that, had it been locked, the assailant could have used another nearby private space. Thus, the missing or unsecured door did not satisfy the but-for test.

Justice McGee read City of Mobile v. Largay as directly analogous. In both cases, a victim abducted off the premises was taken to an available unsecured structure, and he believed the assailant's choice of venue could not make the owner's alleged negligence a legal cause of the assault.

He also concluded that the rape was unforeseeable. He argued that offenses occurring before Davis bought Chalmette and Mr. Property began managing it could not give these defendants notice. Once those earlier offenses were excluded, the relevant record showed only a domestic dispute, burglaries, and minor property damage—not prior rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults, or comparable violence suggesting a risk of rape.

In his view, prior crimes must be sufficiently similar in general character to make the later injury probable rather than merely possible. The majority's contrary rule, he warned, would expose property owners to trial based on unrelated property crimes and would improperly narrow the availability of summary judgment. Justices Wallace and Gonzalez joined his dissent.