Woodall v. RIVERMONT APARTMENTS LTD.
Decision Date | 09 July 1999 |
Docket Number | No. A99A0274.,A99A0274. |
Citation | 239 Ga. App. 36,520 S.E.2d 741 |
Parties | WOODALL v. RIVERMONT APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James A. Shea, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, Michael K. Jablonski, Atlanta, for appellees.
Reginald Woodall was shot in the leg during an armed robbery at Rivermont Apartments. Woodall sued Rivermont Apartments Limited Partnership, its general partner, Brown-Rivermont, Inc., and the property manager, AB Property Management, L.P., alleging that they negligently failed to keep the premises safe. The trial court partially granted defendants' motion in limine to exclude evidence of prior crimes and suspicious activity at the apartment complex. We granted Woodall's application for interlocutory review. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court's ruling in part and reverse in part.
(Citation omitted.) Andrews v. Wilbanks, 265 Ga. 555, 556, 458 S.E.2d 817 (1995). Moreover, "[t]he Georgia rule favors the admission of any relevant evidence, no matter how slight its probative value; evidence of doubtful relevance or competency should be admitted and its weight left to the jury." Johnson v. State, 236 Ga.App. 61, 65(3)(b), 510 S.E.2d 918 (1999).
At about 8:00 p.m. on December 20, 1993, Woodall parked near the apartment complex's mailbox area and walked over to get his mail. The mailboxes were located next to the tennis courts, which were bordered by large bushes. As Woodall returned to his car, a man with a gun emerged from the bushes and told Woodall to "give it up." Woodall started to run toward his car, and the gunman shot him in the leg. The gunman demanded that Woodall give him his money and wallet, and Woodall did so. The gunman unsuccessfully attempted to steal Woodall's car, but fled from the scene on foot after a police officer appeared.
Prior to trial, Woodall discovered evidence of twenty separate property crimes that had occurred at the apartment complex in the previous year, including eight burglaries of apartment units, nine instances where cars in the parking lot were either broken into or stolen, and three instances where mailboxes at the apartment complex were broken into. In addition to these property crimes, there were two other incidents involving encounters by a resident or security guard with suspicious individuals. In granting defendants' motion in limine to exclude evidence of these incidents, the trial court examined each incident separately and concluded that each individual incident was not sufficiently similar to the attack on Woodall to render it admissible. The trial court also excluded certain internal reports of defendants referencing these property crimes. The court did not consider whether the volume of crime, alone or combined with other factors, affected the question of admissibility, but simply considered each prior incident separately. However, the court stated in its order that it had "misgivings that the jury will not have a fair and accurate picture of the condition of the Rivermont [Apartments] at the time of trial." The court denied defendants' request to exclude evidence relating to violent crimes occurring in the vicinity of the apartment complex.
(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Id. at 786, 482 S.E.2d 339. The Supreme Court in Sturbridge expressly rejected the proposition that "a landlord's knowledge of prior criminal acts against property cannot establish the foreseeability of a brutal sex crime as a matter of law." Id. at 786, 482 S.E.2d 339. Thus, the Court held that the landlord's knowledge of two prior burglaries of unoccupied apartments created a triable issue of fact as to whether the landlord "should have reasonably anticipated the risk of personal harm to a tenant which might occur in the burglary of an occupied apartment." Id. at 787, 482 S.E.2d 339. In so holding, the Court noted that "the very nature of burglary suggests that personal injury may occur during the unauthorized entry into the dwelling house of another." Id. at 787, n. 1, 482 S.E.2d 339.
(Footnote omitted.) Id.
Thus, although Sturbridge rejected the proposition that the occurrence of property crimes may never render the occurrence of violent crimes foreseeable, the Court in Doe appears to have restricted the applicability of Sturbridge. Doe appears to establish the following principles: (1) a crime against property will make an act of violent crime foreseeable if the "very nature" of the property crime "suggest[s] that personal injury may occur"; and (2) if an individual who encounters someone committing such a property crime has "opportunities for escaping" the encounter, then the occurrence of the property crime, in and of itself, may not render it foreseeable that a violent crime will occur.
In this case, it does not appear that any of the property crimes, standing alone, would raise an issue of foreseeability under the standards set forth in Sturbridge and Doe. The trial court clearly believed that these cases required it to analyze each prior crime independently to determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
TGM Ashley Lakes, Inc. v. Jennings, No. A03A1401.
...suspected an employee and that Oliver had been discovered in one apartment without authorization. See also Woodall v. Rivermont Apts., 239 Ga.App. 36, 520 S.E.2d 741 (1999) (extent of prior crime may indicate fundamental problems with security, thus making risk of violent crime more foresee......
-
Martin v. Six Flags Over Ga. II, L.P.
...landowner to guard against criminal attacks. Lau's Corp. , 261 Ga. at 492-493, 405 S.E.2d 474 ; Woodall v. Rivermont Apartments Ltd. Partnership , 239 Ga.App. 36, 40-41, 520 S.E.2d 741 (1999) ; Snowden , 219 Ga.App. at 149, 464 S.E.2d 220. And evidence that the landowner had knowledge of a ......
-
Hand v. Pettitt
...jury." (Citation omitted.) Johnson v. State, 236 Ga.App. 61, 65(3)(b), 510 S.E.2d 918 (1999); accord Woodall v. Rivermont Apts. Ltd. Partnership, 239 Ga.App. 36, 520 S.E.2d 741 (1999). Thus, where disputed issues of fact are involved, the trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying......
-
Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Renaissance Bliss, LLC
...who sued various Six Flags entities and a parking company after being attacked at a nearby bus stop); Woodall v. Rivermont Apartments P'ship , 239 Ga.App. 36, 520 S.E.2d 741, 742 (1999) (involving a victim who sued a partnership, general partner, and property manager following an attack in ......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...Sec. 17-7-95(c) (1997)). 99. Id., 524 S.E.2d at 736. 100. Id. at 646, 524 S.E.2d at 736. 101. Id. 102. O.C.G.A. Sec. 24-2-2 (1995). 103. 239 Ga. App. 36, 520 S.E.2d 741 (1999). 104. Id. at 40-41, 520 S.E.2d at 745. 105. Id. at 38, 520 S.E.2d at 743. 106. Id. at 37, 520 S.E.2d at 743. 107. I......