Doe v. Hunter Oaks Apartments, L.P.
105 So. 3d 422
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Doe sued Hunter Oaks for negligence alleging duty to evict the attacker or repair Shadowbrook’s fence to prevent the assault.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in Hunter Oaks’ favor, finding no legal duty.
- Facts include trespassers (Beard brothers) living near Hunter Oaks, using a hole in Shadowbrook’s fence to trespass.
- Doe complained to Hunter Oaks’ manager Reese about trespassers and fence holes; Reese allegedly promised to remove the troublemakers.
- The assault occurred off Hunter Oaks’ premises, in Shadowbrook’s office, after trespassers entered Shadowbrook’s property.
- On appeal, Doe argues Hunter Oaks had a duty or assumed a duty to control the attacker; Hunter Oaks argues no such duty existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Hunter Oaks owe a duty to Doe to control the attacker or prevent the act? | Doe asserts Reese promised to evict and repair; Hunter Oaks had a duty through control. | No existing or contractual duty; no ability to control off-premises conduct. | No duty found; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Did Hunter Oaks assume a duty via Reese's promises to evict and repair the fence? | Promissory assurances created a gratuitous duty to act and protect Doe. | No detrimental reliance; gratuitous promises do not create a duty absent reliance. | No detrimental reliance or scope-violation; no assumed duty established. |
| If an assumed duty existed, is it limited to the scope of the undertaking and not extend to off-premises acts? | Assumed duties would cover preventing the assault. | Even if assumed, duty is limited to undertakings; foreseeability not controlling for assumed duties. | Duty, if assumed, limited to undertaking; not extending to protect from off-premises criminal acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. State ex rel. Miss. Dept. of Corr., 859 So.2d 350 (Miss.2003) (control of third party requires ability to control; no liability otherwise)
- Doe v. Wright Sec. Servs., Inc., 950 So.2d 1076 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (detrimental reliance required for duty by gratuitous promise)
- Wagner v. Mattiace Co., 938 So.2d 879 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (duty from gratuitous undertaking requires detrimental reliance; scope matters)
- Rein v. Benchmark Constr. Co., 865 So.2d 1134 (Miss.2004) (detrimental reliance necessary for liability on gratuitous acts)
- Kimbrough v. Keenum, 68 So.3d 738 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (landlord duty limited when off-property; no implied duty from dog ownership)
- Century 21 Deep S. Props., v. Corson, 612 So.2d 359 (Miss.1992) (summary judgment standards and burden of proof reduction guidance)