 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cole v. Pine Ridge Apartments Company II12/21/2001
conduct of a third person by preventing him from causing harm to another, except in cases where a special relationship between the actor and the third person exists, which gives rise to a duty to control, or between the actor and another which gives the other the right to protection. Fed. Steel & Wire Corp. v. Ruhlin Constr. Co. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 171, 173. A security company's duty to a person injured by criminal activity on the premises depends on the terms of the security company's contract with the owner of the premises. Maier v. Serv-All Maintenance, Inc. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 215, 221, citing Hill v. Sonitrol of Southwestern Ohio, Inc. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 36 and Eagle v. Mathews-Click-Bauman, Inc. (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 792.
In this case, there was some evidence showing that Hill and Latham had the contractual duty to protect both persons and property at the apartment complex. Based on deposition testimony, there was evidence that the guards were required to perform foot patrol. Hill and Latham did not breach their duty to perform the required foot patrols, although Latham was called back to the gatehouse to deal with Giancola at around 3:30 a.m.
Furthermore, even if a special relationship existed requiring DRP and Morris to provide protection for an individual, the security company is liable only if the criminal actions of a third party were foreseeable. Hill, supra, at 39; Fed. Steel & Wire, supra, at 174. No one is bound to prevent consequences which are beyond the range of probability. Feichtner v. Cleveland (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 388, 396.
The totality of the circumstances must be somewhat overwhelming before a business will be held to be on notice of and therefore under the duty to protect against the criminal acts of others. Reitz v. May Co. Dept. Stores (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 188, 193-194. Here, there was no evidence presented which would demonstrate that the murder of JoAnne was a foreseeable act. The totality of the circumstances was not "somewhat overwhelming." Although there is documentation that various incidents of minor property crimes and some occurrences of domestic violence took place at the apartment complex, there was no proof offered that any murders had ever taken place. See Maier, supra, at 222 (where the court stated that " omputer thefts and petty thefts are nonviolent crimes which do not render a murder foreseeable.") Hence, a reasonable person could not conclude that JoAnne's murder was reasonably foreseeable. DRP, Morris, Hill, and Latham had no duty to protect against the unforeseeable actions of a third party, Aquilla. Thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of DRP, Morris, Hill, and Latham.
Again, even if a special relationship existed, DRP, Morris, Hill, and Latham are not liable since the criminal acts of the third party were not foreseeable. As discussed above, the murder in this case was not foreseeable based on the totality of circumstances; hence, there was no duty of care to protect appellants' decedent from the unforeseeable acts of Aquilla.
Additionally, there was no evidence showing that DRP, Morris, Hill, and Latham breached a duty that proximately caused injury . DRP and Morris' duty was limited to what was required under the contract between them and Pine Ridge and Goldberg. The agreement between DRP and Goldberg provided that:
"1. SERVICE
"A. [D.R.P.] agrees to provide CUSTOMER with a uniformed security guard service at CUSTOMERS' facilities, in accordance with mutually agreed schedules.
"B. [D.R.P.] will provide a compliment of uniformed guards, however many CUSTOMER deems necessary, to secure hours provided at * Pine Rid
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|