Court Opinion

ID: 9773772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:58:00.499169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:57.158536
License: Public Domain

SPECTOR, Justice,
concurring.
While I agree with the Court’s remand of Sovereign’s claim on the charge issue, I disagree with the Court’s duty analysis. Accordingly, I do not join Part III of the Court’s decision.
In determining whether a premises owner has a duty to provide additional security, other than that required by a lease or applicable statute, the Court today holds that “for a risk to be foreseeable, there must ... be evidence of criminal activity within the specific area at issue, either on the landowner’s property or closely nearby.” S.W.2d , . In other words, the Court holds that absent evidence of recent, similar criminal activity in the specific area, as a matter of law there cannot be a foreseeable risk of harm to someone like Cain. I disagree.
Certainly, one of the factors to weigh in assessing foreseeability of risk is whether there have been other similar incidents in the immediate vicinity. However, I would hold that other types of evidence may also establish foreseeability. For example, the “nature, condition and location of the defendant’s premises” should be considered by the Court in determining whether to impose a duty on the landowner. Isaacs v. Huntington Mem’l Hosp., 38 Cal.3d 112, 211 Cal.Rptr. 356, 695 P.2d 653, 661 (1985); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 cmt. f (1965) (“If the place or character of [a] business ... is such that [the landowner] should reasonably anticipate careless or criminal *760conduct on the part of third persons, either generally or at some particular time, [the landowner] may be under a duty to take precautions against it_”) (emphasis added).
If the place or character of a business is such that the landowner may be said to have created “an especial temptation and opportunity for criminal misconduct,” W. Page Kee-ton ET AL„ PROSSER & KEETON ON THE LAW OF Torts § 33, at 201 (5th ed.1984), then this also is a factor to consider in determining whether criminal conduct is foreseeable. Here, however, Cain presented no evidence that the character, use made, or location of the apartment complex created a heightened risk of foreseeable criminal conduct. I therefore concur in the Court’s rendition of judgment for Timberwalk.