Posted: June 22nd, 2022

Legal Memorandum Project

Legal Memorandum Project

To: All Legal Assistants
From: Junior Associate
Date: February 25, 2020
Re: Potential Litigation

This firm has been contacted by Susan Wheeler who is concerned that she might be sued by Mr. and Mrs. Robert and Sally Hansen, former tenants in a small apartment complex owned by Mrs. Wheeler located in the Montrose area. Several months ago the Hansen’s were coming home late at night after a party. As they parked their car in the apartment complex parking lot, they were attacked by a group of youths and Mrs. Hanson’s handbag and their car were stolen. Mr. Hansen was shot in the arm but is expected to make a full recovery. The Hansen’s could not make a positive identification of their attackers but think that one of them could have been a tenant at the complex. They have now threatened to sue Mrs. Wheeler.

Mrs. Wheeler does not have first-hand knowledge of the events of the attack, but has provided police reports that reveal some details. I have summarized those reports and Ms. Wheeler’s interview in the attached.

Your assignment is to prepare a legal memorandum fully discussing the potential liability that Mrs. Wheeler may face and how she might defend against it. We need to address the issue whether, in the event that Mrs. Wheeler is sued, we can successfully move for summary judgment dismissing the case. After you complete your research and prepare the memorandum, we will send Mrs. Wheeler a letter explaining her options.

Interview Notes
Susan Wheeler

I have studied the police reports and spoken with Mrs. Wheeler again and have learned the information you need to know to complete the memorandum. You may safely assume that the following information can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury. The question you are addressing is will these facts support a judgment against Mrs. Wheeler or can she successfully move for summary judgment.

Police reports contained the statement of Sam Shepherd, a retired officer of the Pasadena Police Department, who was employed as a security guard at the complex. On the night in question he walked the grounds of the property and saw no suspicious activity near any apartment or in the parking lot. He did note that several of the security lights had been broken and that he told Mrs. Wheeler about them several days before.

According to police reports, the Shady Lane Apartments were located in a mixed residential/commercial area. During the three years prior to the Hansens’ attack, the following complaints were made to the police concerning activity within a 2-mile radius of the apartment complex: 7 assaults, 5 burglaries, 8 auto thefts, 12 other thefts, and 90 complaints of drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and vandalism.

Mrs. Wheeler stated that she suspected that some of her tenants might be involved in gang activity based on the graffiti on the complex’s exterior walls. On several occasions during the past year, Mrs. Wheeler had received complaints from other tenants stating that several young men were playing loud music at night, drinking, breaking glass bottles, and generally being a nuisance. Last month a tenant reported that her car window had been broken but nothing was stolen. There were no other reports of crime at the apartment complex.

I asked Mrs. Wheeler if she regularly conducted background checks on her new tenants. She said that it was not her custom to investigate any prospective tenant other than to verify credit history.

Legal Memo Assignments
Use the following cases to develop the Legal Memo that will address the issue:

972 S.W.2d 749* 307 S.W.3d 762*

4 S.W.3d 333 214 S.W.3d 659

95 S.W.3d 395 267 S.W.3d 9

162 S.W.3d 547 429 S.W.3d 142

2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay WL 7174242 (ignore procedural issue)

March 31, 2020 Completed Legal Memo Due

Legal Memo
Name
Institution

Legal Memo
TO: Junior Associate
FROM: Legal Assistant
DATE: March 26, 2020
RE: Potential Litigation
QUESTION PRESENTED
Under Texas law, is the landlord liable in a suit presented by tenants for failure to provide adequate security in premises?
BRIEF ANSWER
Probably yes? In Texas, inadequate security laws depend on the awareness of the owner of the premises of the security risk present and a failure to take proper action to address the dangers.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Robert and Sally Hansen are tenants of Susan Wheeler. A few months ago, a group of youths robbed the couple as they parkers their car in the parking lot of the complex. Consequently, Sally lost her handbag and the robbers stole their car. Mr. Hansen also suffered a bullet wound on the arm. Luckily, he is on course to making a full recovery. The couple is of the opinion that their property owner Susan Wheeler had the responsibility to safeguard the tenants by providing adequate security on the apartment complex. To that extent, the couple threatens to sue the property owner for losses incurred.
The police report on the incident includes a statement recorded by Sam Shepherd who is a security guard at the complex. The security guard is a former police officer. Therefore, his assessment on the incident is professional. The statement by Sam revealed that he did not notice suspicious activity on the parking lot on the day of the incident. However, few days prior to the attack he had reported some broken security lights on the complex to her boss Susan Wheeler by she did not take any action. On her part, Mrs. Wheeler reported that she suspects that one of the tenants for involvement in gang activities. She also admitted that she did not conduct background checks on any of her clients. Therefore, she could not tell whether the apartment was harboring thieves. According to police reports, the area had recorded a rise in the number of robberies and muggings.

DISCUSSION
I. Under Texas law, is the landlord liable in a suit presented by tenants for failure to provide adequate security in premises?

Tenants have a legal right to expect that the apartments are reasonable safe. The tenants should not be exposed to unacceptable dangers and unnecessary risks. The property owners have an obligation to maintain common areas such as the parking lot. If the tenants have hired a security company, then the entities are responsible for a failure of the obligation to the tenants. Victims that incur injuries or losses due to the failure to fulfil the obligation may have a claim for damages.
One among the many obligations of a property owner is the provision of adequate security. When served by a security company, it has the basic duty to provide a reasonable level of security as contracted (Kennedy & Sakis, 2017). However, property owners cannot prevent all criminal acts. To determine if the owner is responsible for an incident, an assessment of their duty to the criminal is critical. The assessment determines whether the property owner failed in the obligation or whether the failure was a direct cause of the crime. Additionally, it is imperative to determine if the dangers that the property owner failed to protect were foreseeable. To that extent, the tenants must prove that there was a reasonable possibility that the robbery as a result of security conditions that are substandard.

In Texas, security lawsuits investigate whether the property owner was aware of preexisting security risks but they failed to take adequate measures to address the dangers. Nevertheless, it is also critical to consider that nobody is capable of predicting when a robbery will occur. However, it is highly likely that the lack of security contributes to violent criminal activity. Security intended deter criminal acts should be a priority for any property owner. Property owners are not held liable for criminal acts perpetrated by third parties. However, the victims of the criminal act may seek redress against the property owner. The Texas premises liability laws can hold the property owner liable for failing to discourage foreseen criminal activities.

Inadequate security is also known as negligent security. A premise owner may fail to provide reasonable security to deter acts of crime against the tenant. In most cases of inadequate security the victims suffer criminal assaults and robberies. The landlord may claim that she is not responsible for third party actions. However, she was aware that the some of the security lights on the parking lot were damaged. During the period, the landlord did not make any attempt to repair the security lights. The failure by the store to implement reasonable security measures to prevent crime leaves her open to a suit of inadequate security.

Negligent security can occur in any place that is open to the public. Inadequate security claims filed against residential apartment complexes are more difficult than other claims. In most cases, the suits are tricky and they require investigative skills to unravel how the crimes actually occurred.

There are three main tests to determine foreseeability in the negligent security suites. The first one is imminent harm test. Property owner who discover that their tenants are in peril have a duty to provide a warning or inform the police. The rule asserts that the property owner does not have the duty to foresee a harm. However, she must react in haste to any form of harm. The second test is the prior criminal incidents test. The tenant can claim that the property owner should have known of a potential crime if one of a similar nature occurred in the past. Finally, the totality in circumstances test. Here, the tenants can adduce any form of evidence to prove foreseeability. The evidence can include prior security measures, the nature of a neighborhood, and other crimes committed in the past on the premises. The court considers all the factors to determine whether a crime could have been foreseeable.
CONCLUSION
Given the facts of the matter, a summary dismissal is not possible. The tenant has sufficient evidence to make the case process to a full suit. First, the statement provided to the police by the security guard indicates that the tenant was aware that some of the security lights in the parking were not working. The proprietor did not make any effort to replace the lights prior to the attack. Secondly, there was sufficient reason to believe that one of the tenants was involved in criminal gang activities. Despite the suspicion, the property owner did not report to the authorities and she did not warn the other tenants of pending danger. Additionally, the property owner did not conduct background checks on any of her tenants.

Reference
Kennedy, D. B., & Sakis, J. R. (2017). From crime to tort: Criminal acts, civil liability and the behavioral science. In Psychology and law (pp. 133-156). Routledge.

Order | Check Discount