Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02631/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02631-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

,, • 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

F l Leo!oRl'~i\G 

United S~~h Circuit 

APPEALS 

SEP 12 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Cletk DENNIS J. McCLENDON, individually 

and as Personal Representative of 

the Estate of DEBRA J. McCLENDON, 

Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

MOUNTAIN VIEW MALL ASSOCIATES 

and NATIONAL PROPERTY ANALYST 

PARTNERS, Pennsylvania Limited 

Partnerships, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 88-2631 

) (D.C. Civil No. 88-795-W) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, SETH and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2631 Document: 010110090144 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 1 
The plaintiff-appellant's wife had been shopping in the 

Mountain View Mall, a group of retail shops owned and leased by 

the defendants-appellees. She had parked in an area set aside for 

that purpose. As she was returning to her car during daylight 

hours she was shot and killed. She was not sexually assaulted or 

robbed and no motive was developed, and no assailant identified. 

The plaintiff brought this action alleging that the 

defendants were grossly negligent in not maintaining adequate 

security to protect the business invitees. Plaintiff alleges also 

that the defendants had notice of previous incidents by criminals 

and had been warned of dangers to customers in a large mall 

without adequate security. 

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the 

cause of action described in the complaint was not one recognized 

in Oklahoma. The plaintiff responded to the motion, filed a 

brief, and an affidavit of a security expert which asserted that 

the proximate cause of decedent's death was a lack of proper 

management at the mall, and that the lack of security was a direct 

factor as well. 

The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary 

judgment on the ground that the cause of action asserted by 

plaintiff, a failure to provide security, did not exist in 

Oklahoma in these circumstances. 

The parties in this appeal discuss several Oklahoma cases 

which have considered similar situations. The parties are 

obviously familiar with the cases and no purpose would be served 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2631 Document: 010110090144 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 2 
• 

by an analysis here. Suffice it to say that Oklahoma initially 

adopted the doctrine that liability would not be placed on owners 

of premises for the criminal acts of third parties since no duty 

existed to protect the invitee or tenant from such acts. Also, in 

any event, the criminal acts of third parties which intervened 

broke the causation connection in an action for negligence. The 

plaintiff asserts that the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Lay v. 

Dworman, 732 P.2d 455 (1986), changed the rule. However, we must 

agree with the trial court that since Lay related to the physical 

condition of the premises, it brought about no change in the older 

doctrine. There is no indication that any variation was intended 

in the rule stated in the previous non-physical condition cases. 

See Horst v. Sirloin Stockade, 666 P.2d 1285 (Okla. 1983), and 

Davis v. Allied Supermarkets, Inc., 547 P.2d 963 (Okla. 1976), a 

purse snatching injury in a supermarket parking lot. 

Plaintiff would rely on some language in Lay, but this is a 

reference to a case from the District of Columbia Circuit, Kline 

v. 1500 Mass. Ave. Apt. Corp., 439 F.2d 477 (1970), which the 

Oklahoma court in Lay expressly declined to follow. The Oklahoma 

court did not in Lay adopt any general duty to provide security in 

these circumstances. 

Rodgers v. Rosen, 737 P.2d 562 (Okla. 1987), decided after 

Lay continued the no cause of action holding (in a landlord-tenant 

case) in the absence of a physical condition assertion. The court 

there held that summary judgment should have been granted in such 

circumstances for an asserted failure to provide adequate 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2631 Document: 010110090144 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 3 
• 

security. We find no variations of the doctrine by the Oklahoma 

courts on any basis of foreseeability. Again, the Oklahoma 

Supreme Court has expressly declined to follow Kline and this in 

our view represents a statement confirming the non-physical 

condition cases. 

We see no difference in the Oklahoma decisions in the 

application of the doctrine whether the property be residential or 

commercial, nor whether a tenant or an invitee be involved. 

Chief Judge Holloway may file a separate opinion. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2631 Document: 010110090144 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 4