Once this prerequisite is met, the parameters of the duty must still be determined. The foreseeability of an unreasonable risk of criminal conduct is a prerequisite to imposing a duty of care on a person who owns or controls premises to protect others on the property from the risk. “Foreseeability requires only that the general danger, not the exact sequence of events that produced the harm, be foreseeable.” When the “general danger” is the risk of injury from criminal activity, the evidence must reveal “specific previous crimes on or near the premises” in order to establish foreseeability. With regard to foreseeability of the general danger, the Timberwalk Court held as follows: Stated more broadly, we determine both the foreseeability of the general danger and the foreseeability that a particular plaintiff-or one similarly situated-would be harmed by that danger.” Mellon Mortgage Co. “e consider not only the foreseeability of the general criminal act but also the foreseeability that the victim might be injured by the act. However, an exception to the general rule exists in that one who controls premises has “a duty to use ordinary care to protect invitees from criminal acts of third parties if he knows or has reason to know of an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm to the invitee.” Timberwalk, 972 S.W.2d at 756 (citation omitted). As a general rule, “a person has no legal duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third person.” Id. “The existence of a duty is a question of law for the court to decide from the facts surrounding the occurrence in question.” Walker v.
In its first issue, Trammell Crow asserts that as a matter of law it owed no duty to Gutierrez. On appeal, Trammell Crow asserts it owed no duty to Gutierrez because his murder was not foreseeable and, even if foreseeable, the plaintiffs failed to show that any negligence on Trammell Crow's part proximately caused Gutierrez's murder. Finding Trammell Crow negligent, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and Trammell Crow appeals. The petition was later amended to add claims by Maria Gutierrez on behalf of Gutierrez's three minor children from a previous relationship. On March 28, 2002, Maria Gutierrez (Gutierrez's mother) and Karol Ferman, individually and on behalf of her infant son, filed the underlying lawsuit alleging Gutierrez's death was proximately caused by Trammell Crow's negligent failure to provide adequate security. One month after Gutierrez's death, Karol gave birth to a son, four months premature. Gutierrez later died at the hospital from four gunshot wounds, and the San Antonio Police Department classified his death as a murder. There were no other witnesses to the shooting. Then Karol fell to the ground and, no longer able to move, crawled under a car, where she remained until the ambulance arrived. Gutierrez fell to the ground, then got up, and the couple started running towards the south end of the Quarry Market.
Although she did not believe the first shot hit anyone, she thought a second shot hit her husband in the shoulder. Turning toward the sound, Karol saw the shooter, dressed in black with a black hood or ski mask over his or her face.
The witness quarry door movie#
On Februat approximately 12:30 a.m., Luis Gutierrez and his pregnant wife, Karol Ferman, were leaving a movie theater located in the Quarry Market, when Karol heard a gunshot. The Quarry Market is a 53-acre shopping mall located in San Antonio, which in 2002 was managed by Trammell Crow Central Texas, Ltd. Stephens, The Stephens Law Firm, Katy, for appellees. Keller, The Keller Law Firm, San Antonio, Joe B. Wendell Hall, Lara Johnson, Rosemarie Kanusky, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., San Antonio, for appellant. SPEEDLIN, Justice, REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice. DUNCAN, Justice, KAREN ANGELINI, Justice, SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice, PHYLIS J. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, CATHERINE STONE, Justice, SARAH B. Maria GUTIERREZ, Individually and as Next Friend of Andrew Martinez Christopher Martinez and Alex Martinez and Karol Ferman, Individually and as Next Friend of Luis Angel Gutierrez, Appellees.
TRAMMELL CROW CENTRAL TEXAS, LTD., Appellant, v.
0 kommentar(er)
