Delbert Collier v. Legends Park, LP
574 S.W.3d 356
Tenn. Ct. App.2018Background
- On March 12, 2015, Collier was seated by his car parked on Delmar Lane, a public street adjacent to Legends Park North Apartments. He was approached from behind by Starlanja Jones, who demanded money, shot him in both legs with an assault rifle, and robbed him.
- Collier alleged the money was proceeds from a prior settlement; Jones searched the car, returned to search him, then left with accomplices. The shooting undisputedly occurred on the public street, not on the apartment complex’s gated or controlled property.
- Collier sued Legends Park LP and Legends Park North (Defendants) for negligence, claiming Defendants failed to provide adequate security on the premises which allowed Jones to use the property to access and assault him off-premises.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing they owed no duty for injuries occurring off their premises and had no notice or opportunity to prevent the attack.
- The trial court granted summary judgment based on lack of notice/opportunity to prevent the shooting. The Court of Appeals affirmed but on the alternative ground that Defendants owed no duty to protect Collier from a third party’s criminal act occurring off-premises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a premises owner owes a duty to protect a person shot off-premises after a third party used the premises to reach the victim | Collier: premises owner failed to provide adequate security; duty extends where premises facilitated the assailant’s access | Defendants: no duty for injuries occurring on public street off their property; no control or access restrictions over the street | No duty owed by premises owner for criminal act occurring off-premises; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether factual proof of notice/opportunity to prevent is required to defeat summary judgment | Collier: absence of formal boundary control does not preclude duty; foreseeability of crime in neighborhood supports duty | Defendants: Collier offered no evidence Defendants knew of or could have prevented the specific assailant’s conduct | Court noted trial court found lack of notice/opportunity, but affirmed on duty ground (no extension of duty) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment standard and burdens on moving party)
- Giggers v. Memphis Housing Authority, 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009) (elements of negligence)
- McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1995) (duty analysis—foreseeability vs. burden)
- Cullum v. McCool, 432 S.W.3d 829 (Tenn. 2013) (definition of legal duty and risk analysis)
- Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. 2008) (duty to act generally not imposed for dangers others create)
- Hale v. Ostrow, 166 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. 2005) (duty can extend off-premises when hazard originates from defendant’s property)
- Hill v. Lamberth, 73 S.W.3d 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (appellate court may affirm on different grounds than trial court)
- Bobo v. City of Jackson, 511 S.W.3d 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate affirmation on alternative grounds)