448 P.3d 206
Wyo.2019Background
- ASI owned Heritage Court Apartments, a low-income independent living facility; tenants screened by criminal background checks and governed by leases incorporating a resident handbook.
- Tenant Larry Rosenberg repeatedly complained about neighbors (Warwick, Gilbert) and had frequent verbal disputes with ASI staff; no prior record of violent crimes known to ASI.
- In September 2016 Rosenberg shot Warwick and Gilbert (both survived) and fatally shot ASI employee Matt Wilson, then killed himself.
- Plaintiffs (Warwick and Gilbert) sued ASI for negligence, alleging ASI had a common-law and contractual duty to protect them and to follow lease/handbook/personnel policies.
- District court granted summary judgment for ASI, holding ASI owed no duty to protect from Rosenberg’s unforeseeable criminal act and any policy breaches were not the proximate cause; Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ASI owed a common-law duty to protect tenants from Rosenberg | ASI knew of repeated complaints/hostility and therefore should have foreseen violent attack | No foreseeability: complaints were nonviolent, no prior violent acts or threats known to ASI | No duty — attack was not reasonably foreseeable |
| Whether lease/handbook/personnel policies created a contractual duty to protect | Leases and handbook required ASI to address complaints and train staff in conflict resolution; breach created liability | Any contractual duties were limited ("attempt" to resolve); personnel rules were not incorporated into tenant contracts | ASI had contractual obligations to attempt to resolve complaints, but breach (if any) did not establish proximate cause |
| Whether evidence raised genuine issues of fact precluding summary judgment | Plaintiffs point to complaints, overheard statements about threats, and a shirt-grab incident as sufficient notice | ASI argues evidence is insufficient and some testimony is inadmissible hearsay; even if admissible, it does not show foreseeability | Evidence insufficient to show foreseeability; summary judgment proper |
| Whether ASI's alleged failures were the proximate cause of injuries | Failure to address complaints and industry standards made the shootings a probable consequence | Rosenberg’s shooting was an intervening, unforeseeable criminal act breaking causation chain | No proximate cause — intervening criminal act was not a foreseeable consequence |
Key Cases Cited
- Krier v. Safeway Stores 46, Inc., 943 P.2d 405 (Wyo. 1997) (landlord duty to protect arises only when criminal acts on premises are reasonably foreseeable)
- Endresen v. Allen, 574 P.2d 1219 (Wyo. 1978) (foreseeability need not predict precise injury but must show some probable harm to similarly situated persons)
- Lucero v. Holbrook, 288 P.3d 1228 (Wyo. 2012) (proximate cause and intervening acts: unforeseeable intervening criminal acts can break causal chain)