FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L11, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 10 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cv -0 00 12 -LGW -J EG GLORIA LEE, as Su rv iv in g S po us e o f Ro ge r Earl Lee, Decea se d, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ver su s THE CLOROX INTE RNATIONAL COMPANY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 11 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t Gl or iaLee ap pe al s t he gra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t i n fav orof Th e Cl or ox Int ern at io na l Co m pa ny (“ Cl or ox ”) i n awron gf ul de ath a ct io n sh e b ro ug htas t he su rv iv in g s po us e o f Ro ge r Earl Lee (“ Mr. Lee” ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . Mr. Lee was anin de pe nd en t co nt ract ordo in g wo rkfor Nati on al Frei gh t, In c. Clo ro x h ire d Nat io na l Fr ei gh t, In c. to tra ns po rt alo adof b le ach fro m Cl or ox ’s Hou st on faci li ty to i ts Tam pafaci li ty. Nati on al Frei gh t, In c. en ga ge d M r. Lee t o a cco m

pl is h t he trans po rt. On 2 2 F eb ru ary 20 08 , Mr. Lee arriv edat C lo ro x’s Tam pafaci li ty j us t b efo re 4: 00 a.m .; h is sch edul edde li ve ry ti m e was 10 :0 0 a .m . The s ecu rity gu ardadvi se d Mr. Lee t ha t h e co ul d n oten te r th e fac il it y be fo re i ts sch edul edop en in g a t 6 :3 0 a.m . Mr. Lee was aware o f Cl or ox ’s po li cy of d en y in g m id dl e-o f-the -n ig ht adm it ta nc e fro m

a pr ev io us de li ve ry

he ha d m ad e jus t t wo m on th s ea rli er. The se cu rit y gu ardadvi se d t ha t M r. Lee co ul d p arkun de r a n earb y hi gh way ov erp as s un ti l t he faci li ty ope ne d. Mr . Lee to ldth e se cu rit y gu ardth athe wou ldpre fer t o pa rkon th e st reetou ts id e o f Cl or ox ’s pro pe rty. T he sec ur it y gu ardoff

eredno ob jecti onto Mr. Lee’s ch oi ce t o p arkon publ ic pro pe rty adjace ntto Clo ro x’s faci li ty. At ap pr ox im at el y 4: 30 a.m ., whi le Mr. Lee was asl eep in hi s t ru ck , an un kn own ass ai la ntbro ke in to th e truc k andfat al ly sho t M r. Lee. 2Pl ai nt iff fil edth is wron gf

ul de ath a ct io n a ga in stClo ro x; Pla in ti ff arg ue d th atun de r Fl or id a la w Clo ro x o wedMr. Lee a dut y of r eas on ab le care to pre ve nt fo res eeab le ha rm

fro m th ird -p art y

m is co nduc t an d adu ty to warn o f da ng ero us co nd it io ns in th e are a imm ed ia te ly out si de Clo ro x’s fa ci li ty. Clo ro x c ou nt ered th atPla in ti ff’s n eg li ge nc e-b as edcla im s fa il as am atte r of law b ecau se no du ty w as owe d M r. Lee b y

Clo ro x; an d C lo ro x d idno t p ro xi m at el y cau se Mr. Lee’s d eat h. The di stric t co urt o pi ni on ex am in edin so m e d et ai l Fl or id a n eg li ge nc e la w on th e cre at io n o f a dut y

an d c on cl ud edth atno ba si s ex is te d fo r im po si ng a du ty on Clo ro x. We agre e. Und er Fl or id a la w, “ [t]he ge ne ral rul e is th ata pa rty has no leg al du ty to pr ev en t the m is co nduc t o f th irdpe rs on s.... Fl or id a co urts ha ve lo ng be enlo athe to im po se li ab il it y

ba se d o n ade fen da nt ’s fai lu re t o c on tro l t he co nduc t o f a thi rd pa rty.” K.M. ex rel . D.M. v. Publ ix Supe r Marke ts , Inc ., 89 5 S o.2 d 1 11 4, 1 11 7 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 05 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Buta du ty m ay be im po se d wh ere t he de fen da nt ’s con du ctcrea te s a f or es eeab le zo ne of r is k. See M cCa inv. Fl a. Po wer Co rp ., 59 3 S o.2 d 5 00 , 50 3 (F la . 19 92 ) (“ Whe re a de fen da nt ’s con du ctcrea te s a fo re se ea bl e zo ne of risk , th e la w gen eral ly w il l reco gn iz e a dut y

pl acedup on th e d efen danteit he r to les se n t he ris k o r se e th at

3su ffi ci en t p recaut io ns are t ak ento pro te ctot he rs fro m th e h arm th atth e ri sk po se s.”) . Pl ai nt iff arg ue s tha t i n the li gh t o f th e h ig h c rime rate i n t he ne ig hb orho od su rro un di ng Clo ro x’s fa ci li ty andth e in ad equa cy of t he li gh ti ng in th atarea , Cl or ox ’s refu sa l t o a ll ow t ru ck ers earl y en try int o i ts faci li ty creat eda fo res eeab le zo ne of r is k. Bu t as th e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d, Cl or ox ’s po li cy of r efu si ng en try in to it s fa ci li ty whe n t ha t fa ci li ty is cl os eddi d n otcrea te di rect ly a fores eeab le ris k of ha rm . Clo ro x h adno in vo lv em en t i n acri m in al act , itdi d n ot hi ng to en co ur ag e orot he rwis e fac il it at e a cri m in al act , andno ev id en ce s ug ge st edth atth e h ig h cri m e rat e was rel at edto Clo ro x’s d el iv ery en tra nc e p ol ic y . W e can sp ecu la te th atha d C lo ro x a ll owe d M r. Lee ear ly entry in to th e faci li ty his tra gi c d eath l ik el y wou ldha ve be enav oi de d. Bu t t ha t d oe s n otm ean Cl or ox ’s po li cy

crea te d o r co nt ro ll edth e fo res eeab le ris k. Cl or ox ’s ent ry po li cy was kn own to Mr. Lee wh enhe ch os e n ev ert he le ss to arri ve at t he faci li ty hou rs be fo re i t o pe ne d kno win g h e wou ldno t b e al lo weden try. Clo ro x h adno co nt ro l ov er Mr . Lee’s reject io n o f th e se cu rit y gu ard ’s su gg es ti onth athe park at a ne arb y hi gh way ov erp as s o r ov er h is de ci si onto park ona publ ic st reetad

jacen t t o it s fa ci li ty. Thatth e p ub li c p rem is es wher e Mr. Lee pa rk edwere i na de qu at el y li gh te d re pr es en ts no bre ach of dut y by Clo ro x. An d C lo ro x h adno co nt ro l o ve r 4th e cri m in al who to okMr. Lee’s l ife . In s ho rt, C lo ro x t oo k n o a ffi rm at iv e st ep no r

fai le d t o t ak e a s te p t ha t d ire ct ly andne ces sa ril y crea te d aris k o f fo res eeab le ha rm . See Demelus v. Ki ng Mo to r Co . of Fo rt Lau de rd al e, 24 So .3d75 9, 7 61 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 09 ) (“ To i m

po se a du ty, itis no t en ou gh th ata ri skm erel y ex is ts or t ha t a p art ic ul ar ri skis for es eeab le ; ra th er, the de fen dant ’s con du ctm us t cr ea te or co ntro l th e ri skbe fo re l iabi li ty m ay be im po se d” ); Aqui lav. Hi lt on , Inc ., 87 8 So .2d39 2, 3 96 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 04 ). Pl ai nt iff arg ue s tha t a s pe ci al rel at io ns hi p e xi st edbe twee n C lo ro x a ndMr. Lee -- tha t o f la nd own er o r bu si ne ss -in vi te e -- t ha t g av e ri se to a du ty to p rev en t ha rm cau se d b y

th irdpe rs on s. Fl or id a h as ad op te d the Res ta te m en t (S eco nd ) of Tort§ 3 15 (19 65 ) whi chst at es : “ [t]he re i s n o duty so to co nt ro l t he co nduc t o f a th irdpe rs on as t o p rev en t h im fro m cau si ng ph y si cal ha rm

... un le ss ... a sp eci al rel at io n e xi st s b etween th e act oran d the ot he r whi ch gi ve s t o the ot he r a ri gh t t o pr ot ect io n.” See K.M. ex rel . D.M, 89 5 S o.2 d a t 1 11 7. Bu t ag ai n a s t he di st ric t co urt s etou t i n d et ai l, Mr . Lee was no t an in vi te e o f Cl or ox at t he ti m e o f hi s m ur de r; t o t he co nt rary, Mr. Lee was b arre d fr om en try on to Clo ro x’s p rem is es . Mr. Lee kne w th athi s 1 0: 00 a.m . app oi nt m en t was no in vi ta ti on to en te r th e pr em is es or t o e ng ag e in bu si ne ss be fo re the faci li ty’ s s ch edul ed6: 30 a.m . op en in g. Al th ou gh we acce ptth atFlo rid a la w con ti nu es to ev ol ve on th e sp eci al 5rel at io ns hi ps th atmig htgi ve ris e to a du ty, se e Ja ni s v . Pratt & Whi tn ey Can ad a, In c., 37 0 F .Supp . 2d12 26 , 12 30 (M.D. Fl a. 20 05 ), th e ab se nc e o f Cl or ox ’s au th or it y or abi li ty to co nt ro l M r. Lee’s be ha vi orbe li es th e ex is te nc e o f a s pe ci al rel at io ns hi p i n t hi s co nt ex t. Un de r th e fac ts adva nc edby Plai nt iff , we canno t s ay th atClo ro x’s re la ti on sh ip with M r. Lee s up po rts im po si ti on of adu ty upo n C lo ro x to pre ve ntoff

-p rem is es th ird -p art y

ha rm to Mr. Lee. Pl ai nt iff als o a rg ue s t ha t a dut y

to pro te ctaro se fro m

Clo ro x’s ac tu al or co ns tru ct iv e co nt ro l o ve r th e si te wher e th e tr ag edy oc cu rred . Whe re the de fen da ntco nt ro ls “ (1 ) th e in st ru m en ta li ty; (2) th e p rem is es onwhi ch th e to rt wa s co m m it te d; or ( 3) th e to rtf

eas or ,” Daly v. Denn y ’s, Inc ., 69 4 S o.2 d 7 75 , 77 7 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 97 ), Flo rid a rec og ni zes a du ty to p ro te ctag ai ns t t hi rd -p art y to rts . Bu t M r. Lee’s m

ur de r oc curredon publ ic pro pe rty; itdi d n otoc cu r on pre m is es own edor c on tro ll edby Clo ro x. Th atso m e li gh ti ng at C lo ro x’s fa ci li ty affect ed th e li gh ti ng on th e p ub li c streetwher e th e m ur de r oc curred , im

po se s n o o bl ig at io n on Clo ro x t o m on it oran d m ai nt ai n l ig ht in g o n s urro un di ng publ ic pro pe rty. W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t n ei th er Cl or ox ’s refu sa l t o a ll ow t ru ck ers earl y adm it ta nc e n orit s p ro vi si on of s om e li gh t o ve r th e ad jacen t p ub li c streettra ns la te s in to co nt ro l o ve r th e p ub li c p ro pe rty in t he imm ed ia te vi ci ni ty of it s p la nt .

6Pl ai nt iff co nt en ds Clo ro x, wi th supe rio r kn owl ed ge ab ou t cr im e rat es in th e areasu rro un di ng it s fa ci li ty, owe d M r. Lee a dut y to warnab ou t t he dang er t o whi chhe ex po se d h im se lf. Ag ai n, h owe ve r, th e ab se nc e o f a s pe ci al rel at io ns hi p be twee n C lo ro x a ndMr. Lee i s fa ta l t o P la in ti ff’s cl ai m . W e are cit edto no Fl or id a cas e whe re a dut y to warnwas re co gn iz edbu t n o s pe ci al rel at io ns hi p ex is te d t o g av e ri se to th atdu ty. Andso Pla in ti ff’s rel ia nc e o n S hu rb env. Do ll ar Ren t-A- Car, 6 76 So .2d46 7 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 96 ), whe re a cu st om er-r en ta l ag en cy rel at io ns hi p e xi st ed , is m is pl aced . See T.W . v. Reg al Trace, Lt d., 9 08 So .2d49 9, 5 04 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 05 ) (i f no sp eci al rel at io ns hi p i s s ho wn, n o du ty to warn a ris es ; g en eral rul e o f no li ab il ity forth ird -p art y

cri m in al act s ap pl ie s un le ss an ot he r ex cep ti onto th e g en eral rul e m ay be in vo ke d) . AFFIR MED.

7