Mouzon v. Achievable Visions
308 Mich. App. 415
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mouzon was injured by a gunshot at a nightclub (Blackwell Center) after an altercation with Antoine Kope, who entered the club carrying a pistol and later shot Mouzon; police shot and killed Kope at the scene.
- Achievable Visions leased the building and contracted with PPO Security Company to provide security/bouncers for events.
- Witnesses agree security attempted to respond; testimony differed on how long the fight lasted (Mouzon: moments; others: 7–8 minutes). Police were nearby and arrived immediately after gunfire.
- Mouzon sued Achievable Visions alleging premises liability: defendant breached a duty to provide protection, failed to prevent Kope from entering with a weapon, and failed to summon/expedite police.
- Achievable Visions moved for summary disposition arguing it was not vicariously liable for independent contractor security and that any duty to contact police was satisfied because police were present and security promptly responded.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for Achievable Visions; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant breached a duty by providing security or by actions of security | Achievable Visions had a duty to provide safe premises and is liable for inadequate security response | Merchant’s duty of reasonable care does not require providing armed/visible guards; not liable for criminal acts of third parties or negligence of security | Court held merchant is not liable for third-party criminal acts or negligent security performance under Williams and Scott; no breach as a matter of law |
| Whether merchant must make reasonable efforts to contact police | Mouzon argued defendant breached duty by failing to call or expedite police involvement | Defendant argued police were already present and security reasonably expedited police involvement | Court held MacDonald requires reasonable efforts to contact police, but duty is satisfied where police are already present; here police were present and response was prompt |
| Vicarious liability for independent contractor security | Mouzon contended factual dispute existed whether security were employees vs independent contractors | Achievable Visions argued security were independent contractors, so no vicarious liability | Court relied on precedent that merchants aren’t liable for independent contractors’ negligence in providing security; summary disposition affirmed |
| Preservation of additional appellate issues | Mouzon raised other arguments on appeal not addressed below | — | Court refused to consider unpreserved issues; only preserved issues reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc., 429 Mich 495 (merchant’s duty of reasonable care does not include providing armed, visible security to deter third‑party criminal acts)
- Scott v. Harper Recreation, 444 Mich 441 (a merchant who voluntarily provides security is not liable for negligent performance of that security where claim seeks to impose liability for third‑party criminal acts)
- MacDonald v. PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (merchant must reasonably expedite police involvement when criminal acts occur on premises; duty satisfied if police already present)