Aubrey Mitchell v. Ridgewood East Apartments, LLC
205 So. 3d 1069
| Miss. | 2016Background
- On Jan. 1, 2012, 16‑year‑old Devin Mitchell was shot outside a Ridgewood East apartment and later died; Tavaris Collins was arrested and later convicted for the murder.
- Mitchells (parents/next friend) sued Ridgewood East (owner/manager), alleging premises liability for third‑party criminal acts and claiming the landlord had actual or constructive knowledge of Collins’s violent nature.
- Ridgewood East moved for summary judgment supported by a criminologist’s affidavit analyzing three years of police data showing no pattern of violent crime at the property; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs produced incident reports, tenant leases/handbook provisions (prohibiting weapons, intoxication, guests), and argued HUD rules authorized criminal screening such that the landlord had a duty to inquire.
- Plaintiffs’ expert opined the shooting was foreseeable given typical New Year’s conduct and alleged failure to enforce rules; defendants argued no duty or notice to conduct background checks and no actual or constructive knowledge of Collins’s dangerousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ridgewood East had constructive knowledge of Collins’s violent nature | HUD authorization to screen + leases/recertification meant landlord had a duty to inquire and thus should be imputed with knowledge of Collins’s record | HUD rules are permissive (not mandatory); no evidence landlord ever conducted background checks or had notice of Collins as a household member or of violent conduct | No constructive knowledge — no duty to investigate was established and no evidence landlord should have known of Collins’s violent nature |
| Whether incorporation of lease/handbook rules created a contractual duty to prevent third‑party crimes (making criminal acts foreseeable) | By adopting rules prohibiting weapons, drinking, long‑term guests, landlord assumed duty to enforce them and thus foreseeable harm resulted from nonenforcement | Incorporation of rules does not transform ordinary premises duty into a contractual promise to prevent unknown third‑party criminal acts absent notice or an assumed security obligation | No — incorporating policies did not create a heightened duty to prevent unknown violations; foreseeability not shown |
| Whether HUD regulations or lease terms required landlord to obtain tenant criminal records | HUD statutes/regulations authorize screening but do not mandate checks; leases required recertification but did not require background checks or bar tenancy based on criminal history as a blanket rule | HUD/lease provisions are permissive and require consent; no proof landlord had a practice of screening or would have denied Collins | No — HUD provisions are permissive; record lacks evidence landlord had a screening policy or that it would have discovered/acted on Collins’s prior convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Galanis v. CMA Mgmt. Co., 175 So. 3d 1213 (Miss. 2015) (reversed summary judgment where apartment management had actual knowledge of roommate’s violent threats)
- Thomas v. Columbia Group, LLC, 969 So. 2d 849 (Miss. 2007) (reversed summary judgment where manager knew of prior shooting and had time to act)
- Drennan v. Kroger Co., 672 So. 2d 1168 (Miss. 1996) (constructive knowledge may be imputed based on duration and history of a hazardous condition)
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. Wright Sec. Servs., Inc., 950 So. 2d 1076 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (contractual assumption of duty can create liability where an entity agreed to provide protective services)
- Borries v. Grand Casino, Inc., 187 So. 3d 1042 (Miss. 2016) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)