Case Name: Cynthia Thomas GANT v. FLINT-GOODRIDGE HOSPITAL OF DILLARD UNIVERSITY and Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1978-05-10
Citations: 359 So. 2d 279
Docket Number: No. 8881
Parties: Cynthia Thomas GANT v. FLINT-GOODRIDGE HOSPITAL OF DILLARD UNIVERSITY and Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co.
Judges: Before STOULIG, BEER and GAUDIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 359
Pages: 279–283

Head Matter:
Cynthia Thomas GANT v. FLINT-GOODRIDGE HOSPITAL OF DILLARD UNIVERSITY and Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co.
No. 8881.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
May 10, 1978.
Rehearing Denied June 14, 1978.
James J. Morrison, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Lemle, Kelleher, Kohlmeyer & Matthews, Vance E. Ellefson, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.
Before STOULIG, BEER and GAUDIN, JJ.

Opinion:
BEER, Judge.
Cynthia Gant was raped by an unknown assailant on May 15,1972, at approximately 10:30 p. m. in the ground level laundry room of Smith Hall Nurses' Residence, which is affiliated with Flint-Goodridge Hospital. Until March of 1972, Mrs. Gant and her husband lived with her parents at their home. Then, before leasing an apartment in the Smith Hall Nurses' Residence building, she spoke with Mr. Mumfort, Flint-Goodridge Hospital's administrator, who, she states, stressed the safety features of that apartment complex, which included uniformed guard service. She and her mother visited the building prior to the Gants' leasing of an apartment in the building, and both noticed that a uniformed guard was on duty at that time.
Additional security measures observed by Mrs. Gant were: a locked doorway into the lobby of the building restricted to tenants and authorized personnel by the issuance of individual keys; a parking area to which one could gain admittance only by inserting a special card designed to open the gate mechanism; and a visitor screening system. Furthermore, Smith Hall was completely enclosed by the exterior walls of the building and a seven foot high fence.
The testimony of Elbert Ranson, a security officer for Flint-Goodridge, and of Oliver Thompson, whose duties included hospital security, disclosed that two of the security guards employed by the hospital-apartment complex had been terminated in March, two months before the assault, and had not, as of the date of the assault, been replaced. This reduction in force decreased the security patrol coverage that had previously been in effect for the hospital and the adjacent apartment facility.
Although C.C. art. 2703 absolves the lessor from liability for torts against the lessee committed by third persons who claim no right to the leased premises, Reynolds v. Egan, 123 La. 294, 48 So. 940 (1909), Bright v. Bell, 113 La. 1078, 37 So. 976 (1905), Gulf Coal Co. v. Bingaman, 6 La.App. 107 (Orl.1927), Mrs. Gant here contends that the lessor assumed an obligation to provide a continuing high standard of security guard coverage as a particular condition of the lease and that subsequent failure so to maintain was a proximate cause of the attack. She claims that the security guard service which was implicit in the lease negotiations included the continued service Of security guards who would have, ordinarily, been on patrol in the apartment building complex in such number or intensity of coverage as to have prevented the attack.
Mrs. Gant argues that she and her husband moved into Smith Hall primarily because the lessor's agent stressed its safe living conditions. Having created an aura of safety by the maintaining of various security services, including the security guard patrol, Mrs. Gant contends that the management failed to administer the property in accordance with' the standard of safety it had promised to its tenants which proximately caused the tortuous conduct resulting in grave damage to her.
According to the record, the apartment's security service was, at the time of the assault, operating on an "emergency" basis due to a shortage of manpower. The chief security officer testified that one guard was assigned to cover both the hospital and the residence hall and had been relieved of a previously existent obligation to punch the time clocks located at various checkpoints (apparently installed to assure guards would make their appointed rounds) in order that his time could be more fully utilized on patrol.
Even though the record indicates that the security guard services rendered in behalf of the occupants of the Smith Hall apartment complex had diminished from the standpoint of the number of security guards employed on a fulltime basis, we agree with the trial judge's apparent conclusion that this fact does not constitute a basis upon which to impose liability for the unfortunate attack upon Mrs. Gant. We feel obliged to further observe that this most traumatic event might have occurred even with the security services being operated at full strength instead of being somewhat reduced. The record does not tell us how the rapist gained access to the area where the attack occurred.
At any rate, the ultimate resolution of this litigation rests upon factual determinations with respect to implied obligations of security maintenance and proximate cause, and we cannot say that the trial court manifestly erred in making such factual determinations as to form a Canter v. Koehring protected basis of its dismissal of Mrs. Gant's claim. The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
STOULIG, J., dissents.
. No written reasons were given for the dismissal of plaintiff's claim.
. 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973).