Peng Wang, Chong Zhang and Mengqi (Nina) Liu v. TREA Churchill on the Park, LLC, Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC, and American Management Services Central, LLC, 05-21-00880-CV

On Sept. 21, 2018, Jeremy Meeks scaled the six-foot fence at Churchill on the Park, followed tenant Peng Wang into her apartment, fatally stabbed her, and attacked roommate Mengqi (Nina) Liu.
Wang’s parents and Liu sued the apartment owner and property managers for premises liability, alleging inadequate security and failure to prevent foreseeable criminal conduct.
Defendants moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, submitting a criminology expert (Jacobs) showing no prior violent crimes on the property and little local predatory crime data.
Plaintiffs opposed with a declaration from former Dallas Police Chief Rathburn, who relied on broader-area crime statistics and identified 39 prior incidents he deemed relevant.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of appeals affirmed, holding no legal duty existed because the violent crime was not foreseeable as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty/Foreseeability of third‑party criminal acts	Prior nearby crimes, some involving knives or forced entry, and proximity to a psychiatric hospital made violent crime foreseeable	No violent crimes on the premises in two years; prior incidents were property crimes or occurred offsite and were not sufficiently similar	Foreseeability not established as a matter of law; no duty to protect against this attack
Expert evidence establishing foreseeability	Rathburn’s declaration and statistics create a fact issue that defendants should have foreseen risk	Rathburn’s data lacks required detail, mixes dissimilar crimes, and does not controvert Jacobs’ conclusions	Expert opinion alone cannot create a legal duty where Timberwalk factors do not establish foreseeability; Rathburn insufficient
Reasonableness of security measures	Existing security was inadequate; additional reasonable measures were feasible	Property had uniformed patrols, on-site courtesy officer, fence, and surveillance	Court did not reach whether security was unreasonable because foreseeability (duty) was dispositive
Summary judgment standard (no-evidence/traditional)	Plaintiffs contend genuine fact issues precluded SJ	Defendants contend they met burden showing no evidence of essential elements and no duty	Both traditional and no-evidence summary judgments affirmed; plaintiffs failed to produce more than a scintilla on foreseeability/duty

Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998) (no duty to prevent unforeseeable criminal acts)
Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. 1996) (duty to protect arises only from foreseeable risk)
Motel 6 G.P., Inc. v. Lopez, 929 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (elements of premises liability)
Trammel Crow Central Tex., Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 267 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2008) (fact-intensive foreseeability analysis; need for similar prior crimes)
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010) (duty can arise from immediate, imminent risk even absent prior similar conduct)
Mellon Mortg. Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. 1999) (risk must be both foreseeable and unreasonable to impose duty)
UDR Tex. Props., L.P. v. Petrie, 517 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2017) (unreasonableness inquiry balances risk against burdens of precaution)