Title: Hill-Junious v. UTP Realty, LLC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-13380
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: August 16, 2023

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-13380 
 
NORVELLA HILL-JUNIOUS, individually and as administratrix,1  vs.  
UTP REALTY, LLC. 
 
 
 
Norfolk.     April 3, 2023. – August 16, 2023. 
 
Present:  Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Kafker, Wendlandt, 
& Georges, JJ. 
 
 
Wrongful Death.  Consortium.  Negligence, Wrongful death, 
Causing loss of consortium, One owning or controlling real 
estate, Duty to prevent harm, Foreseeability of harm.  
Practice, Civil, Wrongful death, Summary judgment. 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on 
February 12, 2019. 
 
The case was heard by Paul D. Wilson, J., on a motion for 
summary judgment. 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative 
transferred the case from the Appeals Court. 
 
 
Matthew C. Hanson for the plaintiff. 
Robert P. Powers for the defendant. 
 
Christopher Maffucci, for Massachusetts Association of 
Realtors, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
Frank J. Bailey, Selena Fitanides, & John C. La Liberte, 
for PioneerLegal, LLC, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
 
1 Of the estate of Drake Scott, Jr. 
2 
 
 
 
GEORGES, J.  In the early morning hours of February 17, 
2016, Drake Scott, Jr., was shot and killed outside the exit 
door of City Limits Saloon (City Limits or nightclub), a 
nightclub leasing space in a commercial property in Randolph.  
Scott's mother, plaintiff Norvella Hill-Junious, filed this 
negligence action in the Superior Court against the current 
owner of the property, defendant UTP Realty, LLC (UTP),2 seeking 
damages for wrongful death and loss of consortium.  This appeal 
concerns whether summary judgment was appropriately granted in 
favor of UTP. 
 
The plaintiff contends that the granting of summary 
judgment to UTP was inappropriate because there was a dispute of 
material fact whether UTP knew or should have known about prior 
acts of violence at the nightclub, so as to create a duty to 
protect the decedent from the risk of violence on the property, 
 
2 The plaintiff named the prior owner of the property, TJB, 
LLC, as a defendant in her original complaint, but she 
subsequently filed an amended complaint naming only UTP and the 
owner of the nightclub, City Limits, Incorporated, as 
defendants. 
 
City Limits, Incorporated, was defaulted on May 27, 2020, 
for failing to respond to a final request to answer 
interrogatories.  See Mass. R. Civ. P. 33 (a) (4), as appearing 
in 436 Mass. 1401 (2002).  On March 21, 2022, judgment entered 
in favor of the plaintiff against City Limits, Incorporated, in 
the amount of $810,013.35.  See Mass. R. Civ. P. 55 (b) (2), as 
amended, 463 Mass. 1401 (2012).  City Limits, Incorporated, did 
not file a notice of appeal. 
3 
 
specifically, the premeditated killing by a third party.  In 
support of this assertion, the plaintiff relies on her expert 
witness's proffer that it would be unreasonable for a commercial 
landlord like UTP to purchase a property with a nightclub on it 
without first inquiring about past violent acts on the property. 
 
We conclude that, viewing the record in the light most 
favorable to the nonmoving party, the execution-style shooting 
of the decedent was not reasonably foreseeable to UTP in its 
capacity as property owner and landlord, and there was thus no 
duty on the part of UTP to protect the decedent against this 
criminal act by a third party.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
summary judgment in favor of UTP.3 
 
1.  Background.  We summarize the uncontroverted facts in 
the summary judgment record, along with evidence viewed in the 
light most favorable to the nonmoving party -- in this case, the 
plaintiff -- reserving some facts for later discussion.  See 
Williams v. Board of Appeals of Norwell, 490 Mass. 684, 685 
(2022). 
 
This case concerns a commercial property located at 324-326 
North Main Street in Randolph (property) that leases commercial 
space to various local businesses.  In January 2013, the 
property was owned by TJB, LLC (TJB).  At that time, Uyen Phan 
 
3 We acknowledge the amicus briefs submitted by the 
Massachusetts Association of Realtors and PioneerLegal, LLC. 
4 
 
opened a nail salon on the first floor of the property.  Another 
tenant, City Limits, operated a nightclub out of the basement 
floor of the property.  City Limits had its own building 
entrance, which opened onto a right-of-way serving abutters to 
the property as well as an adjacent parking lot. 
 
The record indicates that a number of violent disturbances 
and criminal incidents occurred at the property in the period 
after Phan's nail salon began leasing space from TJB, many with 
connections to City Limits.  In 2013, there was a fight in the 
property's parking lot and an assault inside City Limits.  In 
2014, there were reports of multiple fights occurring on the 
property, a drug-related arrest outside City Limits, windows 
broken by a baseball bat-wielding patron of City Limits, and a 
shooting of three individuals outside City Limits.  In May 2015, 
gun shots were reported by a patron of the nightclub, and police 
found shell casings in the parking lot.  In December of that 
year, another incident occurred, during which a patron of the 
nightclub was hit on the head with a bottle. 
 
In September 2015, Phan formed UTP for the purpose of 
buying the property from TJB.  In November 2015, approximately 
three months prior to the decedent's death, TJB sold the 
property to UTP, and at the time of the sale assigned City 
5 
 
Limits's lease to UTP, in addition to all other rights and 
agreements attached to the property.4 
 
On the evening of February 16, 2016, City Limits held an 
"open mic" live music event in which the decedent participated.  
The shooter, Gregory Wright, saw the decedent at the nightclub 
and formed a plan to shoot him in retaliation for the death of 
Wright's brother; Wright believed the decedent was involved in 
his brother's death.  At least two members of the security staff 
at the nightclub were working at the nightclub that night.  The 
nightclub's procedure was to search everyone entering the 
nightclub when security staff was working, and one security 
staff member remained at the entrance to the nightclub 
throughout the night.  Security staff members who were present 
that night reported that Wright had approached them and asked 
whether the door to the nightclub was "the only exit."  The 
 
4 Under the terms of its lease, City Limits was solely 
responsible for its operations and contractually obligated to 
"carry on and conduct its business upon the Premises [of the 
property] in compliance with all local, [S]tate, and [F]ederal 
laws."  The lease provided that the common areas of the property 
were "at all times . . . subject to the exclusive control and 
management of the Landlord," who must maintain them in a "clean 
manner, in broom-swept condition free from trash and personal 
effects."  Also, under the terms of the lease, City Limits was 
required to carry comprehensive general liability insurance with 
a minimum limit of $1 million for injury or death that named the 
landlord as an additional insured party.  Finally, the lease 
contained a provision indemnifying UTP "of and from all . . . 
actions, claims, . . . [and] liabilities . . . of any nature."  
The lease, however, did not place any obligation on UTP to 
provide security for City Limits or its patrons. 
6 
 
security staff member who answered thought the question was 
"strange."5 
 
After midnight, while patrons were leaving City Limits as 
it closed, the decedent left the nightclub and stopped to speak 
to a few people outside its door.  At that point, Wright, who 
had left the nightclub and was present outside the front 
entrance, shot and killed him.6  Police responded to the gunshots 
within seconds, as they were already in the area.  After a short 
foot chase, police captured Wright, and he was later convicted 
of murder in the first degree in connection with the incident.  
Phan was not present at the property on the night of the murder.  
She did not know the decedent or Wright, or anything about their 
relationship to or knowledge of each other. 
 
 
5 Shortly after midnight, an unidentified woman approached 
Michael Tuitt, an off-duty Randolph police officer who was at 
the nightclub, and told him that she had overheard a man in a 
group near the restrooms state, "[T]he kid who killed my family 
member is here and . . . he is going to get dealt with after the 
club."  Tuitt alerted the head of the security staff at City 
Limits about the woman's comment and notified police.  
Separately, at about midnight, a former member of the security 
staff recommended that the police be contacted when the 
nightclub owner asked whether he heard anything about "problems 
about to occur in the parking lot." 
 
 
6 The parties agree that the murder occurred outside City 
Limits "at the edge of a right of way adjacent to 326 North Main 
Street used in common with other abutters."  A police report 
described the decedent's body as lying on the pavement 
"approximately seven feet outside of the front door of" City 
Limits. 
7 
 
 
Following the shooting, the licensing board of Randolph 
(board) held a hearing, during which the board received evidence 
of police reports concerning City Limits and heard testimony 
from police officers.  On April 12, 2016, the board issued a 
decision in which it made factual findings and concluded that 
the hours during which City Limits could sell alcohol should be 
reduced.  In its findings, the board detailed the nightclub's 
"pattern of operation that caused the [police] to have concerns 
about its management."  These concerns involved not only 
numerous police calls regarding the nightclub, but also its 
"failure to notify the [police]" about criminal activity.  The 
board's decision detailed a number of the incidents that had 
occurred at the nightclub, as well as its disregard of attempts 
that the police had made to suggest tactics that the nightclub 
could use to mitigate outbreaks of violence.  In particular, 
prior to the shooting, police officers had counselled City 
Limits against the use of "open mic" nights, opining that such 
events were likely to give rise to violence at the nightclub. 
 
In February 2019, the plaintiff, as administrator of her 
son's estate, brought this action for wrongful death and loss of 
consortium against UTP.7  The plaintiff alleged that given the 
history of criminal incidents at the property, UTP knew or 
 
 
7 See note 2, supra. 
8 
 
should have known of the potential dangers and threat of 
violence caused by the nightclub's tenancy; UTP therefore had a 
duty to undertake reasonable security measures to deter against 
such foreseeable violence.  UTP's breach of this duty, the 
plaintiff alleged, resulted in the decedent's death. 
 
During her deposition, Phan denied having any knowledge, at 
the time that she was considering purchasing the property, of 
the violent incidents or criminal activity that had occurred on 
the property.8  At the close of discovery, UTP moved for summary 
judgment, arguing that the decedent's murder was not reasonably 
foreseeable, and therefore, no duty of care existed between UTP 
and the decedent.  UTP also argued that, even if it had 
implemented security measures on the property, no such 
reasonable measures would have prevented the decedent's death. 
 
The plaintiff opposed UTP's motion, reiterating her 
argument that because Phan knew or should have known of the 
prior criminal incidents at City Limits, the decedent's murder 
was a reasonably foreseeable risk that gave rise to a duty on 
the part of UTP.  The plaintiff also contended that although the 
decedent's murder was premeditated, the question whether 
 
8 Phan acknowledged speaking with police in March 2016, when 
police executed a search warrant for two units of the property 
in connection with suspected human trafficking activity.  
However, she denied having knowledge of any of the alleged human 
trafficking activity prior to that conversation with police. 
9 
 
additional security measures would have prevented the decedent's 
death was a question of fact for a jury. 
 
A partially agreed-to statement of material facts was 
submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment, as 
well as jointly submitted exhibits.  These exhibits included 
Phan's deposition, the board's decision, and the report of 
Russell Kolins, a security expert proffered by the plaintiff.  
Kolins opined that security at City Limits was deficient in 
several respects and that UTP had "failed to fulfill its duties 
as a commercial property landlord," by failing to provide 
adequate lighting and security for the property's common areas 
and by failing to conduct a risk assessment of the property, 
which would have uncovered the ways in which City Limits 
"deviated from accepted security standards."  After a hearing on 
the motion, the judge issued a decision allowing UTP's motion 
for summary judgment. 
 
In his decision, the judge concluded that UTP did not have 
a duty to protect the decedent from the shooting because such an 
event was not foreseeable.  The judge observed that there was no 
affirmative evidence in the record that Phan knew or should have 
known of the prior criminal activities at City Limits and noted 
that the plaintiff did not cite any precedent in support of her 
claim that a commercial landowner has a duty to inquire about 
any history of past criminal activity on its property.  The 
10 
 
judge did not reach UTP's alternative argument that no 
reasonable security measures would have prevented the shooting.  
A final judgment entered dismissing the complaint as to UTP, and 
the plaintiff appealed.  We transferred the case to this court 
on our own motion. 
 
2.  Discussion.  "We review a grant of summary judgment de 
novo."  Medina v. Hochberg, 465 Mass. 102, 105 (2013).  "Summary 
judgment is appropriate when, 'viewing the evidence in the light 
most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have 
been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment 
as a matter of law.'"  Id., quoting Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. 
Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120 (1991).  To be successful, a moving 
party "may satisfy [its] burden of demonstrating the absence of 
a triable issue either by submitting evidence that negates an 
essential element of the opposing party's case or by 
demonstrating that the opposing party has no reasonable 
expectation of proving an essential element of [her] case at 
trial."  Petrell v. Shaw, 453 Mass. 377, 381 (2009), citing 
Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 809 
(1991).  Once the moving party has met this burden, the opposing 
party is "required to respond by 'set[ting] forth specific facts 
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'"  
Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 
(1991), quoting Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (e), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). 
11 
 
 
"A viable negligence claim requires a showing that a 
defendant owes a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff, the 
defendant committed a breach of that duty, the plaintiff 
suffered damage, and a causal relationship existed between the 
breach of duty and the damage."  Heath-Latson v. Styller, 487 
Mass. 581, 584 (2021).  "[T]he existence of a duty is a question 
of law, and is thus an appropriate subject of summary judgment."  
Jupix v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141, 146 (2006). 
 
We have observed that "the existence of a duty of care 
depends upon the foreseeability of a risk of harm that the 
defendant has an ability to prevent."  Heath-Latson, 487 Mass. 
at 584, citing Lev v. Beverly Enters.-Mass., 457 Mass. 234, 243 
(2010).  In the case of a commercial landowner, this includes "a 
duty to take reasonable precautions to protect persons lawfully 
in common areas of rental property against reasonably 
foreseeable risks."  Whittaker v. Saraceno, 418 Mass. 196, 198 
(1994), citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 360 (1965).  
Generally, this duty does not extend "to taking 'affirmative 
steps to protect against dangerous or unlawful acts of third 
persons.'"  Heath-Latson, supra, quoting Luoni v. Berube, 431 
Mass. 729, 731 (2000).  "A landlord is not free, however, to 
ignore reasonably foreseeable risks of harm to tenants, and 
others lawfully on the premises, that could result from unlawful 
intrusions into common areas of the leased premises."  
12 
 
Whittaker, supra at 197.  Thus, in appropriate circumstances, a 
landlord "may be liable for ignoring criminal activities that 
occur on premises and were known or should have been known to 
[the landlord]."  Griffiths v. Campbell, 425 Mass. 31, 34 
(1997).  "[T]he cases in which we have imposed liability are 
those in which a person legally on the premises is attacked, and 
the owner or landlord knew of or should have known of both the 
previous attacks and the potential for a recurrence based on a 
failure to take measures to make the premises safer."  Id. at 
35. 
 
"Notions about what should be foreseen . . . are very much 
interwoven with our feelings about fair and just limits to legal 
responsibility."  Whittaker, 418 Mass. at 198, quoting 4 F. 
Harper, F. James, Jr., & O. Gray, Torts § 20.5, at 136-137 (2d 
ed. 1986).  As a result, "[a]ll the circumstances are examined 
in defining the scope of a duty of care based on the reasonable 
foreseeability of harm."  Whittaker, supra at 199, citing Flood 
v. Southland Corp., 416 Mass. 62, 72 (1993).  "The previous 
occurrence of similar criminal acts on or near a defendant's 
premises is a circumstance to consider, but the foreseeability 
question is not conclusively answered" by evidence of such acts.  
Whittaker, supra. 
 
"The word 'foreseeable' has been used to define both the 
limits of a duty of care and the limits of proximate cause."  
13 
 
Whittaker, 418 Mass. at 198, citing 4 F. Harper, F. James, Jr., 
& O. Gray, Torts § 20.5, at 139.  "As a practical matter, in 
deciding the foreseeability question, it seems not important 
whether one defines a duty as limited to guarding against 
reasonably foreseeable risks of harm or whether one defines the 
necessary causal connection between a breach of duty and some 
harm as one in which the harm was a reasonably foreseeable 
consequence of the breach of duty."  Whittaker, supra at 198-
199.  See Belizaire v. Furr, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 299, 304-305 
(2015). 
 
On review of the summary judgment record, we conclude that 
the execution-style murder that occurred here was not a 
reasonably foreseeable risk that UTP had the ability to prevent, 
and therefore, UTP had no duty to protect the decedent against 
this sudden, unanticipated act of violence.  To begin, there was 
no evidence "that the defendant was affiliated in any way with, 
or knowledgeable about, the [perpetrator] or any dispute that 
the [perpetrator] may have had with the [decedent]."  Belizaire, 
88 Mass. App. Ct. at 305.  Rather, the record suggests that the 
shooting was not related in any way to Phan, UTP, the property, 
or City Limits, and that it only occurred there because the 
perpetrator happened upon the decedent there that evening. 
 
Of course, UTP's duty is not circumscribed by what it knew; 
the duty also encompasses what it should have known.  The 
14 
 
plaintiff relies heavily on the evidence of prior acts of 
violence at the property to argue that the harm that occurred 
here was reasonably foreseeable.  However, even if UTP should 
have known of the prior acts of violence identified by the 
plaintiff, that would not be conclusive on the question of duty.  
Whittaker, 418 Mass. at 199.  See Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 
389 Mass. 47, 56 (1983), citing Samson v. Saginaw Professional 
Bldg., Inc., 393 Mich. 393, 406–407 (1975) ("Prior criminal acts 
are simply one factor among others that establish the 
foreseeability of the act of [a] third party").  We must also 
consider whether the harm that the plaintiff claims was 
foreseeable is one "that the defendant has an ability to 
prevent."  Heath-Latson, 487 Mass. at 584.  Here, the record 
cannot reasonably support a conclusion that security measures, 
including those suggested by the plaintiff's expert, such as 
additional exterior lighting and an additional security presence 
near the nightclub's exit, would have prevented the shooting 
that occurred.9  See Petrell, 453 Mass. at 381.  To the contrary, 
the record indicates that despite the presence of security staff 
at the nightclub and, specifically, on duty at the entrance 
 
9 Given our conclusion on this point, the plaintiff's 
proffer of expert evidence -- to the effect that UTP failed to 
act as a reasonably prudent commercial landlord by failing to 
inquire upon purchase about the risk profile of the property and 
to implement the suggested security measures -- does not suffice 
to create a genuine issue of material fact. 
15 
 
where the shooting took place, Wright brazenly devised and 
executed his plan to shoot the decedent, even going so far as to 
ask security staff whether the door to the nightclub was "the 
only exit" in the hours before shooting the decedent.  And no 
rational basis exists to conclude that lighting could have 
prevented the killing. 
 
It is a well-established principle that a landlord "is not 
a guarantor of the safety of persons in a [property's] common 
area."  Whittaker, 418 Mass. at 197.  "The possibility of 
criminal conduct occurring is present in almost every aspect of 
daily life.  In that sense the possibility of a violent attack 
is always able to be foreseen."  Id. at 200.  The law, however, 
does not "place the burden of all harm caused by random violent 
criminal conduct on the owner of the property where the harmful 
act occurred, without proof that the landowner knew or had 
reason to know of a threat to the safety of persons lawfully on 
the premises against which the landowner could have taken 
reasonable preventive steps."  Id.  See Luisi v. Foodmaster 
Supermkts., Inc., 50 Mass. App. Ct. 575, 579 (2000) (affirming 
summary judgment for commercial property owner as to allegations 
of inadequate security where "no reasonable preventive measures 
taken by the defendants could have prevented the sudden and 
unprovoked attack on the plaintiff").  Such proof is lacking in 
the summary judgment record here. 
16 
 
 
3.  Conclusion.  Based on the foregoing, we conclude that 
the targeted, execution-style shooting that occurred here was 
not reasonably foreseeable to UTP; therefore, UTP had no legal 
duty to prevent it.  Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment 
entered in favor of UTP. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.