QuikTrip Corp. v. Goodwin
449 S.W.3d 665
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Ernesto Reyes raped and murdered Melanie Goodwin after briefly interacting with her at a QuikTrip store in Denton, while Chin, the assistant manager, was on duty and Melanie shopped inside.
- Ernesto sought a ride and lingered in the store; Chin allowed him to stay, provided food, and tried to manage the situation without contacting police.
- Melanie left the store with Ernesto in her car; after leaving, Ernesto abducted, raped, and murdered her; he fled to Mexico and was later convicted.
- Appellees (Melanie’s estate and her parents) sued QuikTrip for premises liability (failures to provide a safe environment, warn about danger), seeking wrongful death and survival damages.
- The trial court denied summary judgments; a jury found QuikTrip 28% liable; the court entered a take-nothing judgment on appeal.
- The court reverses, holding no duty existed as a matter of law because the risk was not foreseeable and the premises owner had no duty to protect against this crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did QuikTrip owe a duty to protect Melanie from Ernesto's crime? | Goodwin | QuikTrip | No duty as a matter of law |
| Is Del Lago the controlling foreseeability framework for this case? | Appellees rely on Del Lago's imminent-risk standard | QuikTrip argues Del Lago does not apply | Del Lago not controlling; no duty established |
Key Cases Cited
- Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010) (foreseeability framework for third-party criminal acts on premises; duty when imminent risk is known)
- Graham Cent. Station, Inc. v. Pena, 442 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. 2014) (no general duty to protect from criminal acts absent foreseeability)
- Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998) (foreseeability factors for prior similar conduct on premises)
- Mellon Mortg. Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. 1999) (foreseeability of criminal acts by third parties; general rule with limitations)
- Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. 1995) (prior conduct not sufficiently similar to foreclose foreseeability)