Udr Texas Properties, L.P. D/B/A the Gallery Apartments, United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc., Asr of Delaware, L.L.C., and Udr Western Residential, Inc. v. Alan Petrie, 517 S.W.3d 98

Background

Plaintiff Alan Petrie was assaulted and robbed in the visitor parking lot of The Gallery apartment complex; the visitor lot was outside the gated area and publicly accessible.
Petrie sued the property owner (Gallery), alleging Gallery knew or should have known of high crime and failed to use ordinary care to protect invitees.
At a two-day evidentiary hearing both sides presented experts focused mainly on foreseeability; the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment for Gallery.
The court of appeals reversed, applying the Timberwalk factors and concluding there was evidence of a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of violent criminal conduct.
The Texas Supreme Court granted review to address whether the court of appeals properly treated Timberwalk factors as dispositive of both foreseeability and unreasonableness.
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Gallery because Petrie presented no evidence on the burden Gallery would face to prevent the crime (i.e., unreasonableness element).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gallery owed a duty to protect Petrie from third-party crime	Timberwalk factors show crime was foreseeable, establishing duty	Timberwalk factors address foreseeability only; plaintiff also must prove the risk was unreasonable	Court: Foreseeability and unreasonableness are distinct; Timberwalk informs foreseeability but does not resolve unreasonableness; duty not established here
Whether Timberwalk factors alone can establish that a risk is unreasonable	Timberwalk factors considered the risk as a whole, sufficient to show both foreseeability and unreasonableness	Timberwalk factors measure foreseeability only; unreasonableness requires evidence of the burden to prevent harm and public-policy balancing	Held: Timberwalk factors do not address burden or policy; they cannot substitute for unreasonableness evidence
Whether plaintiff preserved or produced evidence on unreasonableness (burden on defendant)	Plaintiff argued publicity, past crimes, and lack of protective measures show unreasonableness	Defendant argued plaintiff offered no evidence on what it would cost or what measures would be required to prevent the crime	Held: Plaintiff presented no evidence or argument on the burden of precautions; failure was fatal—judgment rendered for Gallery
Whether the trial court’s duty ruling was reviewable absent specific findings on foreseeability vs. unreasonableness	Plaintiff relied on court of appeals’ combined analysis	Defendant argued trial court could have based its ruling on unreasonableness as an independent ground, which plaintiff failed to challenge	Held: Plaintiff’s omission left an independent basis unchallenged; Supreme Court affirms reversal and renders judgment for defendant

Key Cases Cited

Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998) (establishing factors to assess foreseeability of criminal conduct on property)
Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. 1996) (general rule that property owners have no duty to protect from third-party crimes)
Lefmark Mgmt. Co. v. Old, 946 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. 1997) (property owner owes duty if it knows or should know of an unreasonable and foreseeable risk)
Mellon Mortgage Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. 1999) (reiterating that a duty arises only when the risk is both unreasonable and foreseeable)
Trammell Crow Cent. Tex., Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 267 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2008) (discussing foreseeability vs. unreasonableness and scope of duty in parking-lot shooting case)
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010) (emphasizing policy balancing and that unforeseeability is not the only basis to deny duty)
Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. 1990) (duty analysis balances risk and foreseeability with social utility and burden of precautions)