Estate of Sharita M Williams v. Consuella Lewis
332755
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- On April 9, 2013 Myron Williams (a Park employee) fatally shot coworker Sharita Williams at a clinic, then set the building on fire and killed himself. An unarmed Advanced Security guard, Consuella Lewis, was on duty that morning.
- Sharita Williams had ended a relationship with Myron, reported stalking/harassment and property crimes she believed he committed, and obtained a PPO six days before the killing. She asked Lewis to serve the PPO; Lewis declined and never saw the paperwork.
- Plaintiff (estate) sued Lewis and Advanced Security for wrongful death/negligence, alleging they failed to protect Sharita when Myron entered the clinic. Advanced Security was a contractor hired by Park to provide unarmed security.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing no legal duty existed to protect against unforeseeable third-party criminal acts; plaintiff argued Lewis knew enough (including knowledge of the PPO) to trigger a duty to call police or warn.
- The trial court denied summary disposition. On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed duty de novo and reversed, holding defendants owed no duty that would support negligence liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a legal duty to protect Sharita from Myron’s criminal act | Lewis knew of harassment, a PPO, and other facts that made Myron’s violence foreseeable and thus imposed a duty to act | No special relationship existed; criminal acts were unforeseeable and defendants had no duty beyond calling police when specific imminent threats were known | No duty existed; general awareness of harassment/PPO did not create notice of a specific, imminent threat triggering a duty to protect |
| Whether Advanced Security is liable derivatively as Park’s contractor (special relationship) | Advanced Security had contractual/security obligations toward employees and its policies promised protecting life | As an independent contractor, Advanced Security had no special relationship with Park’s employees; any duty derived from Park’s duties and did not exist here | No special relationship; Advanced Security had no independent duty to protect employees from unforeseeable third-party crimes |
| Whether Williams was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract, creating enforceable duties | Williams as an employee/patient class was an intended beneficiary, so Advanced Security owed contractual duties to her | Even if an intended beneficiary, third-party beneficiary rights do not create tort duties beyond contractual obligations | Even assuming beneficiary status, no separate tort duty exists from contract nonperformance; plaintiff cannot convert contractual breach into tort liability |
| Whether Advanced Security voluntarily assumed a duty under Restatement §324A | By providing security, Advanced Security voluntarily undertook protection and thus assumed a duty to act reasonably | Contract-based duties cannot be transformed into broader tort duties under Michigan precedent; §324A cannot be used to bypass contract analysis | Court noted §324A is limited by Michigan law; plaintiff’s contractual/tort theory fails—summary disposition still appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Brown, 478 Mich 545 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (employer not liable where prior nonviolent misconduct did not forewarn of sexual assault)
- Bailey v. Schaaf, 494 Mich 595 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (limited duty to protect tenants/invitees; duty triggered by notice of specific imminent harm)
- Krass v. Tri-County Security, Inc., 233 Mich App 661 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (no special relationship between invitee and independent contracted security company)
- Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc., 429 Mich 495 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (examples of recognized special relationships)
- MacDonald v. PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (duty triggered by notice of specific situation posing imminent harm)
- Fultz v. Union-Commerce Assoc., 470 Mich 460 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (tort action will not lie solely for failure to perform contractual duty)
- Hamed v. Wayne County, 490 Mich 1 (Supreme Court of Michigan) (employer not liable where prior misconduct did not predict violent criminal act)