Facts

The plaintiff is Andre Hill-Bey and the defendant is Park Village Partners Ltd. On Sept. 19, 2003, at around 12:30 p.m., the plaintiff was driving out of the parking area of the defendant's apartment complex. He was exiting through an electronic gate. A gang member was standing just outside the gate. He suddenly pulled out a gun and shot the plaintiff three times. Although the plaintiff was seriously wounded, he survived.

Nine days earlier, the plaintiff came to the see his step-daughter at the apartment complex because she had been threatened by gang members. The gang members had disbanded by the time the he arrived to aid his step-daughter. However, the plaintiff verbalized a challenge to the gang members. An investigation by the Compton Sherriff's Dept. revealed the attack on the plaintiff was in retaliation for the challenge he issued.

CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff sued the defendant, the owner of the apartment complex. His suit was based on the theories of premises liability and general negligence. He claimed the defendant had a duty to him to provide armed security guards. This would ensure the safety of the tenants and guests as they enter and exit the property. According to the plaintiff, because of the lack of security, the gang member was able to wait for him to exit.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. It asserted that the apartment complex did not owe or breach a duty to the plaintiff. Even if it did owe a duty, breaching it was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that the area was a high crime neighborhood and violent crime was foreseeable. Accordingly, the defendant owed a duty to provide protection for the plaintiff, a guest at the apartment complex. The plaintiff referred to other apartment complexes in the vicinity which had armed security guards. Further, the defendant had hired security guards in the past. Such guards were stationed in the exact location where the plaintiff was attacked. The plaintiff asserted that security guards would have deterred or prevented the attack.

Injuries

The plaintiff sustained gunshot wounds.

Result

The court granted the defendant's motion. It found that the defendant did not owe or breach a duty to the plaintiff. Further, there was no causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, judgment was rendered for the defendant on all causes of action. Costs were awarded to the defendant.