L.A.C. v. Ward Parkway Shopping Center Company, L.P.

Facts

P, a twelve-year-old minor, went to the Ward Parkway Shopping Center to see a movie with her friend, A.G. After leaving the movie, she and a group of friends gathered in a common area. Also with the group was a fifteen-year-old boy, whom P had met the previous weekend. While she talked to this young man, he grabbed her purse and ran off with it into a hallway. She followed, demanding its return. The young man replied, 'No, not till you give me a kiss.' She complied, and the young man returned her purse. But as she turned to walk away, the young man grabbed her, and said, 'Let's do it.' The young man picked her up and began to carry her. P screamed, hitting him on the back and demanding to be put down. Friends nearby refused to help her because the boy was older and bigger and had a gun showing. The young man briefly put her down, but then said, 'We're going to do this,' picked her up, and carried her into the 'catwalk,' a walkway connecting the mall to a parking lot. In the catwalk, despite her struggles, the young man raped her. After P was picked up and began screaming, her friend went downstairs and within a minute found an IPC (D) security guard. She told the guard that her friend was in trouble and needed help. The guard dismissed her, saying that the young man was just playing. A.G. then went upstairs and found another IPC (D) officer near the arcade. After explaining what happened, that officer also dismissed her, accusing her of trying to 'get some boys for messing with [the girls].' A.G. saw P again. At first, in a state of shock and warned by her assailant to be silent, P said nothing. After a couple of minutes, she broke down and cried, telling her friend that the young man had raped her. P reported the rape to the police and received treatment that night at a hospital. Her assailant was arrested the next day and eventually found to have committed rape by the juvenile division of the circuit court. The contract between Ward (D) and IPC (D) contains a number of relevant provisions. Two are especially important. IPC (D) security officers are empowered to detain individuals when necessary to protect mall customers from the risk of serious injury. IPC (D) and Ward (D) management both agreed to cooperate to determine the proper work hours and staffing to 'provide adequate security to the mall.' The contract also assigns specific duties to IPC (D) security officers, including making frequent, random rounds of the premises to check for safety hazards. Security officers are required to be watchful for criminal activities and report any such observations to mall management. P brought suit against Ds for ordinary negligence. P sued Ds for breach of contract as a third party beneficiary of the management and security contracts. Ward (D) moved for summary judgment and IPC (D) moved for judgment on the pleadings. P submitted evidence that the mall management was put on notice of criminal activity at the mall, consisting of IPC (D) incident reports and Kansas City police department records. Within the three years prior to the incident, incidents included one sexual assault, one robbery, and abduction, thirteen armed or attempted armed robberies, nine strong-arm or otherwise violent robberies, four aggravated assaults, and twenty-eight simple assaults. The IPC (D) reports also include nine incidents labeled 'battery,' which range from an improper touching to a fight, to an assault during an attempted theft of an automobile. Three reports indicate unlawful use of a firearm, including one involving a suspect who pointed a weapon at officers after a robbery. At least seventy-five of the crimes were violent. The trial court granted Ward's (D) motion for summary judgment and IPC's (D) motion for judgment on the pleadings on all claims. It found that P was not a third party beneficiary of Ds’ contracts. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.