Trammell Crow Central Texas, Ltd. v. Gutierrez

267 S.W.3d 9 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Robertson, an off-duty policeman, began his shift as a security guard at the Quarry Market. While driving slowly past the front of the movie theater, he noticed two people he thought were dressed in black hats and jackets standing by the payphones located just to the side of the theater entrance. He made eye contact with them, and they acknowledged his presence. He continued his patrol, heading away from the theater as patrons began exiting the building. P and his wife Karol had just finished watching a movie and were heading towards their car. Karol heard a gunshot. She turned in the direction of the sound and saw a person dressed in black and wearing a ski mask pointing a gun towards her and P. The assailant fired again, hitting P in the shoulder and causing him to fall to the ground. P got back up, and the couple began running. Karol ran a short distance before she fell face-first to the ground and crawled under a nearby car for protection. P suffered four gunshot wounds: one in the shoulder, two in the back, and one in the back of the head. Robertson, was a few hundred feet away when the shots were fired. He drove to where Luis lay wounded, secured the crime scene, and notified the police dispatcher of the incident. Security in a different part of the mall saw someone run through a breezeway and get into a green jeep. They gave chase but discontinued when the jeep's occupants fired shots at their vehicle. P died of his wounds. No criminal charges were ever filed. P sued D, the property manager of the Quarry Market claiming that D negligently failed to provide adequate security. Ps claim the attack as a botched robbery. Ps' expert criminologist testified that the absence of the wallet indicated that a robbery had occurred and that attackers intent on murdering a victim would not likely have taken the time to loot the body before fleeing the scene. D claims that P was killed in retaliation for providing the police with information regarding a series of burglaries in which he was involved. A few weeks before, officers had arrested P after finding a stolen watch in his home. P then provided information about the burglaries and those who committed them. A few weeks later, P asked the police for money to relocate after he received threatening messages from those involved in the burglary ring. The officer gave P $250. P was killed one week later. Ps got the verdict for $5 million. The court of appeals affirmed. D appealed. D argues that no duty exists because P's death was unforeseeable and that any failure on D's part did not proximately cause P's death.