Maryland Mall Owner Not Held Liable for Criminal Shooting in its Parking Lot
In Maryland, a property owner can be held legally responsible if a dangerous condition on their property injures an invited guest. But what if the “dangerous condition” is a person committing a crime? Put another way, is a property owner responsible if someone is the victim of a third-party crime on its premises?
A recent decision from a Maryland federal judge, Winffel v. Westfield Property Management, helps to explain the law in this area. This case involves a 2016 crime spree committed by a man now serving a life sentence in prison. In May 2016, this man shot and killed his wife outside a public school in Beltsville, Maryland. The shooter then fled the scene and approximately 18 hours later arrived at a nearby shopping mall.
The shooter approached a woman seated in a parked car, apparently with the intent to carjack her. The woman ran towards two other men and asked for help. As the two men started to assist, the shooter opened fire. One of the men was killed and the other seriously injured. The shooter once again fled and killed one other person before law enforcement finally apprehended him.
The estate of the man killed in the mall parking lot subsequently filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the owner of the property and its security contractor. The case was heard in federal court. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the estate’s lawsuit should be dismissed as a matter of law.
The court agreed with the defendants. The judge explained that under Maryland law there is no duty “to control the conduct of a third person so as to prevent him or her from causing physical harm by criminal acts or intentional torts.” In some cases, there may be a specific state law or “special relationship” that imposes such a duty. But generally speaking, a person is not responsible for preventing a third-party from committing a crime.
More to the point of this case, there is no “special duty imposed on a landlord” to protect its tenants or invited guests from crimes committed by a third party on the landlord’s premises. The landlord only has a duty of “reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe.” If there was a history of criminal activity on the property, for example, the landlord would be required to take “reasonable measures” to eliminate any conditions that may contribute to such criminal activity.
But in this case, the judge concluded, neither the mall nor its security contractor owed either of the gunshot victims a duty to either eliminate any condition related to criminal activity or even “take any affirmative action” to protect them. As such, the judge concluded summary judgment for the defense was appropriate.
Contact Waldorf MD Personal Injury Attorney Robert Castro Today
This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.
Source:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1049316087981890660
