 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fields v. Moore12/22/1997
The dispositive question before us is whether the summary judgment evidence raises a fact issue on whether Euline Moore, a landlord, should have reasonably foreseen an unreasonable risk of harm to her tenant, Deborah Fields, from a violent sexual assault by another tenant of Moore's. We conclude that it does not, and we affirm the summary judgment.
Deborah Fields rented a house from Euline Moore. Moore also owned a vacant parcel of land adjacent to the house Fields rented. About a year and a half after renting the house to Fields, Moore permitted her son, Gary Vestal, to move a mobile home on the vacant parcel and reside there. Vestal had been convicted of various drug and alcohol, theft, and burglary offenses, and had undergone psychiatric care after he suffered a serious head injury in an automobile accident in the early 1980s. She did not inform Fields of Vestal's criminal history or his psychiatric history.
After Vestal had lived in the mobile home for about five months, he broke into the house Fields was renting. He entered through an unlocked kitchen window and sexually assaulted Fields. Her two children saw at least part of the assault. Vestal was later convicted of the aggravated sexual assault and was imprisoned.
Fields sued Moore for damages, contending that Moore's failure to warn her of Vestal's possible criminal conduct and her failure to secure the rental premises against criminal acts constituted negligence and a proximate cause of the assault. The trial court granted summary judgment for Moore, and Fields appeals.
Tort liability depends on the existence of a duty and the violation of that duty. Lefmark Management Co. v. Old, 947 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. 1997); Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex. 1990). The existence of a duty is a question of law for the court to decide, unless the facts surrounding the occurrence are disputed. Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. 1995). A person ordinarily has no duty to prevent criminal acts of a third party who is not under that person's supervision or control. Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996); Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, supra; Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985). But a landlord has a duty to warn invitees or tenants of known hidden dangers that present an unreasonable risk of harm. Lefmark Management Co. v. Old, supra.
A lessor's duty to protect tenants or other persons on the leased property from the criminal acts of third parties does not arise unless there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm. Walker v. Harris, supra; see also Tracy A. Bateman & Susan Thomas, Annotation, Landlord's Liability for Failure to Protect Tenant from Criminal Acts of Third Person, 43 A.L.R.5th 207, at Section(s) 37, 45 (1996). Consequently, Moore was entitled to summary judgement if she established as a matter of law that it was not reasonably foreseeable that Vestal would commit an assault on Fields. Walker v. Harris, supra.
Summary judgement is proper only if the movant proves by uncontroverted summary judgement evidence that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that she is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979). Because the movant bears the burden of proof, all conflicts in the evidence are disregarded, evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true, and all doubts as to the genuine issue of material fact are resolved in the nonmovant's favor. Gonzalez v. Mission Am. Ins. Co., 795 S.W.2d 734, 736 (Tex. 1990). A defendant who moves for summary judgement must demonstrate that at least
Page 1 2 3 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|