Wright v. PRG Real Estate Mgmt., Inc.
826 S.E.2d 285, 426 S.C. 202 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a landlord voluntarily undertakes to provide security services for tenants, the landlord assumes a duty to perform that undertaking with reasonable care, and may be liable for a tenant's injuries from a third-party criminal act if the negligent performance of the security undertaking increased the risk of harm or the tenant suffered harm because of reliance on the undertaking.
Facts:
- In 2003, before Denise Wright signed a lease at the Wellspring apartment complex, a manager told her there were security officers on duty.
- Security was an important factor for Wright in her decision to rent an apartment at Wellspring.
- Wellspring's monthly tenant newsletter stated, "Security is also [a] very top priority with us" and provided a "security pager" number for residents to call.
- Wellspring had an internal "courtesy officer program," offering reduced rent to law enforcement residents for patrolling, but the limited and specific details of this program were not disclosed to tenants.
- On September 18, 2008, Wright returned to Wellspring around 10:00 p.m. and was abducted and robbed at gunpoint by two men who emerged from behind overgrown shrubbery near a non-illuminated pole light.
- At the time of the attack, and for the two months prior, there were no courtesy officers employed at Wellspring, a fact that was not communicated to Wright or other tenants.
Procedural Posture:
- Denise Wright sued Franklin Pineridge Associates, PRG Real Estate Management, Inc., and Karen Campbell in the South Carolina circuit court (trial court) for negligence.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Respondents (the apartment complex entities).
- Wright, as appellant, appealed the decision to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
- A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment.
- Wright, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of South Carolina to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 landlord who voluntarily undertakes to provide security services for tenants potentially create a duty of care under Section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, such that summary judgment is inappropriate when there are factual questions about the scope of the undertaking, the tenant's reliance, and causation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice James
Yes. A landlord who voluntarily undertakes to provide security for tenants creates a duty of care under Section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and summary judgment is improper when there are genuine issues of material fact regarding that duty. The court clarified that a landlord's voluntarily assumed duty to provide security falls under the "undertaking exception," governed by Restatement § 323. This section imposes liability if the failure to exercise reasonable care either increases the risk of harm or causes harm due to the plaintiff's reliance. The scope of the landlord's undertaking must be viewed from the perspective of what was communicated to the tenant, not the landlord's internal, undisclosed limitations. In this case, there are jury questions as to whether Respondents' representations created a duty, whether Wright relied on them, whether the failure to provide any security increased her risk, and whether such failures were a proximate cause of her injuries.
Dissenting - Justice Kittredge
No. While a limited duty may exist under Section 323, summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact on the element of proximate cause. The dissent argues that there is no evidence of reliance, as Wright herself stated she had not seen a security officer in the five years she lived at the complex. Furthermore, the connection between the absence of a courtesy officer and the criminal attack is too attenuated to establish causation-in-fact, and the crime itself was not foreseeable, thus failing the legal cause requirement. The majority's holding improperly morphs a limited undertaking into a sweeping duty to protect tenants from all third-party crime.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a landlord's voluntary undertaking to provide security is analyzed under the broader "undertaking exception" of Restatement § 323, rather than the narrower "affirmative acts" exception. It establishes that the scope of the assumed duty is defined by what the landlord represents to the tenant, not by undisclosed internal program limitations. By framing the key questions of duty, reliance, breach, and proximate cause as issues for the fact-finder, this case lowers the threshold for tenants to survive summary judgment in negligence actions based on failed security promises, potentially increasing landlord liability.
