Davis v. Regency Lane, LLC

• Decision Date: 28 January 2021
• Docket Number: No. 1747, Sept. Term, 2019,1747, Sept. Term, 2019
• Citation: 249 Md.App. 187,245 A.3d 115
• Parties: Earl DAVIS, et al. v. REGENCY LANE, LLC
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

249 Md.App. 187

245 A.3d 115

Earl DAVIS, et al.

v.REGENCY LANE, LLC

No. 1747, Sept. Term, 2019

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

January 28, 2021

Argued by: Tiffany N. Sims (Jackson & Associates Law Firm, LLC, Stan D. Brown, and Stan Derwin Brown Law Office, LLC on the brief) Largo, Maryland, for Appellants.

Argued by: James E. Dickerman (Eccleston and Wolf, P.C. on the brief) Hanover, Maryland, for Appellee.

Panel: Graeff, Leahy, Wells, JJ.

Graeff, J.

On October 30, 2016, at approximately 2:45 a.m., two teenagers, Brian Davis (age 18) and Todd Webb, Jr. (age 14), were shot and killed by an unknown assailant(s) outside an apartment owned by Regency Lane, LLC ("Regency"), appellee, in Capitol Heights, Maryland. On July 18, 2018, Mr. Davis’ parents, Earl Davis and Torcelia Hawes, and Todd Jr.’s parents, Todd Webb, Sr. and Lasherne Walker, in their individual capacities and on behalf of their sons’ respective estates, sued Regency in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. The complaint alleged that Regency negligently failed to exercise reasonable care in providing adequate security measures on the premises to protect tenants and invitees from foreseeable criminal activity. The circuit court granted Regency's motion for summary judgment, ruling that appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims.¹

On appeal, appellants present a single question for this Court's review, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:

Did the circuit court err in finding that Regency did not owe a duty to Brian Davis and Todd Webb, Jr.?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND²

I.Shootings

On the evening of October 29, 2016, Shanelle Brown hosted a party for approximately 25 family members and friends at her apartment in the Regency Lane apartment complex. Ms. Brown's apartment was located at 6862 Walker Mill Road, on the "backside" of the property.

Mr. Davis, who was not a tenant on the property, arrived with his cousin after the party started at 9:00 p.m. At some point during the party, Todd Webb, Jr., a tenant of the complex who lived with his mother, Ms. Walker, attempted to gain entry to the party, but Ms. Brown did not let him in because she did not know him. Todd Jr.’s whereabouts between the time Ms. Brown turned him away and the shooting were unknown.

At approximately 11:30 p.m., Mr. Davis called his mother, Ms. Hawes, and asked her to call him an Uber to get home. He indicated that he would text her his location, but he never sent a follow-up message. Ms. Hawes called him several times, but he did not answer his phone.

Ms. Brown testified at her deposition that, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Mr. Davis told her that he was leaving, and he went outside to wait for a taxicab. There were a handful of other people from the party in the parking lot in front of her apartment, but Ms. Brown was not sure what they were doing.

At approximately 2:45 a.m., Ms. Brown heard multiple gun shots in the parking lot outside her apartment window. Mr. Davis, Todd Jr., and Ms. Brown's cousin, Gleason Wood, were shot and killed by an unknown assailant or assailants.³ Mr. Davis and Todd Jr. did not know one another, and no witnesses were identified to testify based on personal knowledge regarding the circumstances of the shooting.⁴

II.Security/Criminal Activity at Regency Lane Apartments

During discovery, appellants obtained documentation and deposition testimony regarding security at the apartment complex. In Regency's answers to appellants’ interrogatories, Regency stated that there were cameras installed on certain areas of the property, but there were no cameras at the back of the complex where the shooting occurred. It also stated that it "maintained halogen flood lights throughout certain parts of the property" and had "no trespassing" and "no loitering" signs posted.

Regency also contracted with a security firm, Edward Finn, Inc. ("Finn Security"), to provide security services for Regency's 30 apartment buildings. Finn Security assigned one officer to three different properties, including Regency Lane Apartments, for a six-hour shift on varying days and times. The officers sent daily "Police Security Logs" to Arletta Whitaker, the Community Manager at Regency Lane Apartments.

Several logs indicated that a fence surrounding the property was not secure. Ms. Whitaker stated in her deposition that there was a black iron fence surrounding the perimeter of the property, but the gate in the fence behind 6864 was not intended for tenants to use as an entry or exit point, and it had a lock on it.

A log entry for September 27, 2016, stated that the officer on duty stopped a male loitering and ordered him to leave the property. It noted that "[t]he fence to the rear of 6864 Walker Mill was left unsecure." In another log two days later, the officer reported that the "gate to the rear of 6864 [was] open and unsecure," and several males were observed inside 6864 and ran when the officer approached. The log entry stated: "The rear gate must be kept locked to avoid future trespassers." Earlier logs similarly noted that the rear fence gate was left unlocked.

Appellants attached a document to their answers to Regency's interrogatories that listed all the service calls for the apartment complex received by the Prince George's County Police Department from October 14, 2013, to December 10, 2016. This document shows multiple service calls relating to alleged crimes against persons, including assaults, robberies, and fights, as well as five reports of gunshots or shootings and multiple calls reporting drug related activity.⁵

In a series of emails sent to Regency's owner, Avi Bernstein, on October 6, 2016, Ms. Whitaker, the Community Manager at Regency Lane Apartments, expressed concern about trespassers and safety on the property. Ms. Whitaker indicated that there were increased complaints about the "sale of guns and drugs" near building 6864, and when she drove by, there were "quite a few ‘new’ guys hanging inside 6862 and 6864." She stated that, when the men ignored her explanation of the loitering policy, she called the police, who sent eight police cars in response, but they made no arrests. She then stated: "Can you PLEASE consider installing cameras in the back before something bad happens???? Residents are saying it is really bad in the late evening and night time." She also reported that the flood lights over the rental office and on the "back side of 6840" were not working.

Ms. Whitaker further told Mr. Bernstein: "A camera definitely needs to be put facing 6864. The last row of buildings 6852-6864 are becoming a problem area." Mr. Bernstein asked how a camera would help, to which Ms. Whitaker replied: "It would expose who is selling the drugs and whose household has all this unwanted traffic in the building." She sent another e-mail a few minutes later stating: "I know this Property is never going to be perfect but it is getting bad. These guys are disrespectful and I am almost afraid to work here. The complaints are pretty serious."

Ms. Whitaker was questioned at her deposition about her concerns. She did not recall the emails, but after they were shown to her, she stated that she did not recall whether Regency installed cameras in response. The cameras had been installed, however, at the time of her deposition.⁶ She did not know whether security was patrolling the night of the shooting. Any reports of casualties between 2013 and 2016 would have been reported to her and Mr. Bernstein.

III.Summary Judgment

On July 22, 2019, Regency filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that there was no genuine dispute of fact, and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Regency argued that appellants failed to establish the elements of a premises liability claim for several reasons.

First, Regency argued that an owner of real property owes a duty of care only to invitees, and appellants failed to demonstrate that the decedents were invitees at the time of the incident. It asserted that appellants presented no witness with personal knowledge of the events leading to the shooting, and the only information provided suggested that the decedents were trespassers because "they were participating in an illegal dice game" and "loitering, in direct contravention of any invitation to the Premises, and of Maryland law." Regency argued that, even assuming the decedents were invitees at some point in time, at the time of the shooting, they had "exceeded the scope of their invitation by engaging in" unauthorized activities.

Second, Regency argued that, even if the decedents were invitees at the time of the shootings, appellants still failed to show that Regency owed a duty to the decedents. It asserted that appellants had not produced "evidence of sufficient prior similar criminal activity on the premises to render the incident in question reasonably foreseeable," and they had not shown evidence of a dangerous physical condition within Regency's control that enabled the criminal activity in this case.

Third, Regency argued that appellants had failed to show how the allegedly inadequate security measures caused the decedents’ deaths or how additional security measures could have prevented the shootings. Because appellants had no witnesses with personal knowledge regarding what happened that night, they could not show that any security measures would have had an effect on the shooting.

On August 14, 2019, appellants filed an opposition to Regency's Motion for Summary Judgment. They argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because the question of whether Regency owed a duty to the decedents involved unresolved questions of fact that must be submitted to a jury. They asserted that Regency owed a duty to the teenagers because Todd Jr., was a tenant, and therefore, he could not be a trespasser, and Mr. Davis was an invitee of Ms. Brown. Appellants argued that the only...