Henley v. Pizitz Realty Co.
Decision Date | 27 July 1984 |
Citation | 456 So.2d 272 |
Parties | Lisa Diane HENLEY v. PIZITZ REALTY COMPANY, a Corporation. 83-362. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Hilliard R. Reddick, Jr. of Hardin & Hollis, Birmingham, for appellant.
Michael K. Wright of Norman, Fitzpatrick & Wood, Birmingham, for appellee.
Appeal by plaintiff from a summary judgment for defendant. We affirm.
The basic legal question presented is whether or not a private corporation owes a duty to protect its invitees from a criminal attack.
Plaintiff, Diane Henley, parked her automobile in a parking deck owned and operated by Pizitz Realty Company (Pizitz) as a business enterprise. Upon entering the deck, she was presented with a ticket which recited:
On the day of the episode giving rise to this action, the plaintiff returned to the parking deck after work, at approximately 5:40 p.m. She rode an elevator to a point near the parking level, then walked down a lighted way to her car. At that point, she was accosted at gunpoint by a man who forced her into her car. He required her to drive to the exit and pay the attendant, and then he forced her to drive to an apartment, where she was raped. She reported the incident to the police, whose investigation led to the arrest and conviction of the assailant.
At the time in question, the parking deck was equipped with a number of closed circuit television cameras monitored in the attendant's booth. A guard was also employed who made regular patrols of the deck.
Through interrogatories later propounded by plaintiff to defendant, it was disclosed that during the ten-year period between January 1, 1970, and December 31, 1979 (which is beyond the date of this incident, i.e., December 6, 1979), the following crimes, of which defendant had notice, occurred in this parking deck: one battery upon an owner of a car; six breakings and enterings of cars; two robberies; one rape (this occurrence); six thefts; and one theft in which the thief was shot by a customer.
Plaintiff brought this action against Pizitz, alleging negligence and wantonness in maintaining its security system in the parking deck, and for breach of an agreement between Pizitz and plaintiff to provide and maintain a security system, resulting in plaintiff's abduction, battery, and rape. Pizitz moved for summary judgment, supported by the pleadings, defendant's answers to plaintiff's interrogatories, and the depositions of plaintiff, Peggy Ervin, Daniel Brown, and O.O. Young. Following a hearing, this motion was granted. Plaintiff appealed.
In support of her argument that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant, plaintiff espouses two positions. In one, plaintiff argues that a business proprietor has a legal duty to protect patrons from criminal acts when the proprietor knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know that criminal acts are likely to occur. Under this principle, plaintiff maintains, the facts adduced show that Pizitz should have known of the likelihood of criminal activity and thus had a duty to protect plaintiff. In that connection, plaintiff urges that this Court adopt § 344 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965):
In the other position, plaintiff maintains that the language of the parking ticket, together with the presence of the television cameras, constituted a contractual duty, voluntarily assumed by Pizitz, to provide security against criminal attack by third persons.
This Court considered this same problem in Latham v. Aronov Realty Company, 435 So.2d 209 (Ala.1983). That decision explored the pertinent Alabama cases as well as decisions from other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Vines v. Plantation Motor Lodge, 336 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Ala.1976) ( ); City of Mobile v. Largay, 346 So.2d 393 (Ala.1977) ( ). See also Berdeaux v. City National Bank of Birmingham, 424 So.2d 594 (Ala.1982) ( ); and Annot., 10 A.L.R.3d 619. Perusal of our cases, and those of many other jurisdictions concerned with the problem, discloses an emphasis upon the absence of proximate cause, a conception not without difficulty in its application even on a case-by-case basis. See, Jones, J., dissenting in Largay, supra.
In Parham v. Taylor, 402 So.2d 884 (Ala.1981), a clerk in a food and beverage store was shot by a robber. The clerk brought an action for damages against her employer, claiming that he had failed to provide a safe place to work "in that she was not adequately protected from the criminal acts of third persons." In affirming summary judgment for the employer, this Court aligned itself with the reasoning expressed in a similar Kentucky decision, Thoni Oil Magic Benzol Gas Stations, Inc., v. Johnson, 488 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Ky.1972):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hail v. Regency Terrace Owners Ass'n
...such notice. Saccuzzo, 646 So.2d at 596, citing Williams v. First Alabama Bank, 545 So.2d at 27 (Ala.1989). In Henley v. Pizitz Realty Co., 456 So.2d 272 (Ala.1984), this Court considered a case in which an invitee was abducted from a parking deck and was taken off the premises and raped. T......
-
Thetford v. City of Clanton
...Corp., 565 So.2d 137 (Ala.1990); Bailey v. Bruno's, Inc., 561 So.2d 509 (Ala.1990), and cases cited therein; Henley v. Pizitz Realty Co., 456 So.2d 272 (Ala.1984). There was evidence that the hotel had actual notice, for example, that Mrs. Banks's husband had beaten her, that she feared him......
-
Doud v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp.
...foreseeability to create a duty in its proprietor to protect patrons against subsequent attacks. See, e.g., Henley v. Pizitz Realty Co., 456 So.2d 272 (Ala.1984); Rogers v. Jones, 56 Cal.App.3d 346, 128 Cal.Rptr. 404 (1976) (disapproved by Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, 38 Cal.3d 1......
-
Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain
...premises in question give notice of the risk that crime may travel to the premises of the business owner".).37 See Henley v. Pizitz Realty Co., 456 So.2d 272, 273 (Ala.1984) (the landowner's parking ramp); Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon, 744 P.2d 43, 48-49 (Colo.1987) (a particular restaurant); ......
-
Duty of Property Owners and Operators to Protect Patrons from Crime
...or operator, and the equity of imposing the duty. Supra, note 1 at 49-50. 4. Supra, note 1 at 48-49. 5. Henley v. Pizitz Realty Co., 456 So.2d 272 (Ala. 1984). 6. Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, 38 Cal.3d 112, 211 Cal. Rptr. 356, 695 P.2d 653 (1985). 7. Supra, note 1 at 49. 8. See, ......