Trammell Crow Central Texas, Ltd. v. Gutierrez
2008 Tex. LEXIS 767, 267 S.W.3d 9, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1355 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner has a duty to protect invitees from third-party criminal acts only if the risk of harm is unreasonable and foreseeable. Foreseeability requires that prior criminal acts on the premises be sufficiently frequent and similar in nature to the crime at issue to put the landowner on notice of the specific danger.
Facts:
- Luis Gutierrez and his wife, Karol Ferman, attended a late-night movie at the Quarry Market, a large commercial property managed by Trammell Crow.
- A few weeks prior to his death, Luis had been arrested for involvement in a burglary ring and provided information to the police. He subsequently received threats and accepted $250 from an officer for relocation purposes.
- Just after midnight, upon exiting the theater, an unknown assailant in a ski mask shot Luis multiple times in the parking lot without any prior demand or interaction.
- The assailant shot Luis once in the shoulder, twice in the back, and once in the back of the head, causing his death, and then took his wallet.
- In the two years preceding the shooting, ten violent crimes, all classified as robberies, were reported at the Quarry Market.
- Of the ten prior robberies, several involved the threat of a weapon, including guns, but in no instance was a weapon discharged, and no victim had suffered serious bodily injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Luis Gutierrez’s mother and wife sued Trammell Crow Central Texas, Ltd. for negligence in a Texas state trial court.
- A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them over $5 million in damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment conforming to the jury’s verdict.
- Trammell Crow, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The en banc Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Trammell Crow then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property manager have a legal duty to protect an invitee from a violent murder by a third party when prior crimes on the premises consisted of robberies and assaults, none of which involved a discharged firearm or resulted in serious bodily injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Willett
No, the property manager did not have a legal duty to protect the invitee from this specific criminal act. A landowner's duty to protect against third-party criminal acts arises only when the crime is foreseeable, which is determined by analyzing prior incidents based on their proximity, publicity, recency, frequency, and similarity. Although ten violent crimes occurred at the Quarry Market in the preceding two years, they were not sufficiently frequent or similar to make the murder of Luis Gutierrez foreseeable. The previous robberies did not involve the discharge of a weapon or serious injury, and the attack on Gutierrez—an ambush-style shooting from a distance without a demand—was an extraordinary crime so unlike prior incidents that Trammell Crow was not on notice of such a specific danger.
Concurring - Chief Justice Jefferson
No, the property manager did not have a legal duty, but for different reasons. While the murder may have been foreseeable given the history of armed robberies on the premises, foreseeability is not the only factor; the court must also determine if the risk was unreasonable. This requires balancing the risk and likelihood of injury against the burden of imposing a duty on the defendant. The risk of this specific crime was not unreasonable because preventing such a brazen and violent attack would require a level of security that is prohibitively burdensome and undesirable, essentially turning public spaces into police states. Therefore, no duty should be imposed.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'similarity' factor within the foreseeability analysis for premises liability, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to establish a duty when a criminal act represents a significant escalation in violence from prior incidents. The court clarified that foreseeability is not established by a general history of crime, but requires prior acts that are similar enough in character and severity to put the owner on notice of the specific risk. The concurrence highlights a tension in premises liability law, suggesting a move away from a rigid prior-incidents test toward a more flexible balancing test that considers the unreasonableness of the risk and the societal burdens of imposing a duty.
Unlock the full brief for Trammell Crow Central Texas, Ltd. v. Gutierrez