Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06338/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06338-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Balcor Property Management
Appellee
Judi Watson
Appellant

Document Text:

FIL~ D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Unit.ed States Court of Appcah T<': th r·~~";" 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MA'( 1 a 1992 

JUDI WATSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BALCOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, doing 

business as Sun Ridge Apartments, 

Defendant-Appellee . 

ROBERT L. HOECKE:C 

) C1er1: 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-6338 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-1934-A) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY , 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); 10th Ci r . R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument . 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals from summary judgment entered by the 

district court for Defendant in this negligence action brought to 

recover damages for a criminal attack on Plaintiff in an apartment 

she leased from Defendant. The district court held that 

* This order and judgme nt 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: 91-6338 Document: 010110247693 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 1
Plaintiff's own conduct on the night of the attack--sending a date 

home and remaining in the apartment after her attacker, a former 

boyfriend, had already made his criminal intrusion into the 

apartment known--constituted an intervening, superseding cause of 

her injury, relieving Defendant of any potential liability for its 

alleged negligence in failing to provide promised security 

services to prevent such intrusions on the premises. 

We review a summary judgment decision de novo under the same 

standard used by the district court, i.e., we must determine 

whether any genuine issue of material fact is in dispute and, if 

not, whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law. Railhead Freight Sys. v . United States Fire Ins. Co., 924 

F.2d 994, 995 (10th Cir. 1991). Where, as here, the operative 

facts are uncontroverted, we need determine only whether the 

district court correctly applied the appropriate substantive law. 

Id. at 995. We hold that it did and, accordingly, affirm for 

substantially the reasons stated in its order granting summary 

judgment. 

The district court listed the following facts as undisputed, 

a characterization the parties have not challenged on appeal: 

(1) On Saturday, February 10, 1990, Plaintiff, 

Judi Watson (hereinafter Watson), entered into an 

Apartment Lease Agreement with Sun Ridge Apartments, 

which included an additional agreement for the provision 

of an intrusion alarm system. 

(2) At approximately 6:30 p.m., on February 13, 

1990, Watson realized that the intrusion alarm had not 

been activated before she went out on her date with Mr. 

Alexander. 

(3) When Watson and Mr. Alexander came back to 

Watson's apartment, Mr. Alexande r we nt to the bathroom. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6338 Document: 010110247693 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 2
At that time Mr. Nabors, the acquaintance-intruder, 

emerged from behind the sofa. 

(4) After discovering Mr. Nabors, there was 

nothing preventing Watson from leaving the apartment or 

requesting help. 

(5) Watson then told Mr. Alexander that everything 

was fine, and asked Mr. Alexander to leave. 

(6) After Mr. Alexander left, Mr. Nabors 

criminally attacked Watson. 

District Court Order of September 9, 1991, at 1-2 (record 

citations omitted). Under these circumstances, the district court 

concluded that Plaintiff's perplexing decision to eschew the 

various available means of securing her own safety and thereby 

enable the intruder to remain alone with her in the apartment 

constituted a superseding cause of her subsequent injury. 

We agree with the district court's assessment of the case. 

Although undeniably linked to some extent with Defendant's alleged 

negligence in facilitating the intruder's entry into the 

apartment, Plaintiff's conduct nevertheless satisfied the criteria 

for a superseding cause, severing Defendant's legal responsibility 

for the unfortunate consequences that followed. Briefly put, the 

undisputed evidence established that Plaintiff's conduct was 

(1) neither an invited nor ordinary response to the danger created 

by the intruder's presence, (2) sufficiently instrumental to be 

deemed an adequate and direct cause of her injury by the intruder, 

and (3) not reasonably foreseeable from the standpoint of 

Defendant. See Henry v. Merck & Co., 877 F.2d 1489, 1495 (10th 

Cir. 1989)(reciting and applying Oklahoma's three-prong test for 

superseding cause). Plaintiff bore the burden of proof on this 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6338 Document: 010110247693 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 3
element of her case (i.e., proximate cause), Long v. Ponca City 

Hosp., Inc., 593 P.2d 1081, 1087 (Okla. 1979), and her failure to 

establish a triable issue warranted the summary judgment in favor 

of Defendant. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 

(1986) . 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

4 

Entered for the Court 

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6338 Document: 010110247693 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 4