BETHANY GROUP, LLC v. Grobman
315 Ga. App. 298
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Grobman sued The Bethany Group, LLC for premises liability and private nuisance after Grobman was murdered in a Bethany-operated apartment complex parking area.
- Grobman was dispatched to Alden Ridge; the caller identified himself as Jamal from a disposable phone; identity of Jamal remained unknown.
- Bethany had previously hired a security company; security levels were reduced in 2007 due to cost concerns.
- Bethany was aware of prior crimes at Alden Ridge, including robberies of taxi drivers, pizza delivery, and other criminal activity.
- The trial court denied Bethany’s summary judgment motion; the court held there were genuine issues of material fact.
- This Court affirmed, applying a de novo standard and viewing evidence in the light most favorable to Grobman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to a licensee and breach. | Grobman argues Bethany knew of risks and failed to exercise ordinary care. | Grobman was a licensee; no demonstrated willful or wanton breach. | Question of fact on duty and breach. |
| Proximate cause and foreseeability. | Knowledge of prior crimes made the risk foreseeable; negligence in security. | Intervening criminal act may break causation unless foreseeable. | Jury question on foreseeability and proximate cause. |
| Nuisance due to repeated criminal activity. | Repeated armed robberies constituted a continuing nuisance. | Nuisance requires a regularly repeated act or condition caused by owner. | Evidence supports triable issue on nuisance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spear v. Calhoun, 261 Ga. App. 835 (2003) (duty to licensees; knowledge of crime matters in foreseeability of danger)
- Barnes v. St. Stephens Missionary Baptist Church, 260 Ga. App. 765 (2003) (landlord not liable absent foreseeability of danger)
- Sturbridge Partners v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (1997) (prior burglaries can create duty to safeguard against risks)
- Walker v. St. Paul Apartments, 227 Ga. App. 298 (1997) (foreseeability of danger as to duty)
- FPI Atlanta, L.P. v. Seaton, 240 Ga. App. 880 (1999) (foreseeability standard for proximate cause in nuisance/ premises)
- Rigdon v. Kappa Alpha Fraternity, 256 Ga. App. 499 (2002) (duty and foreseeability considerations in premises liability)
- Bishop v. Mangal Bhai Enterprises, 194 Ga. App. 874 (1990) (summary judgment where status issues unresolved)
- Wojcik v. Windmill Lake Apts., 284 Ga. App. 766 (2007) (invitee/invitee-like analysis for duty context)