Wright v. Prg Real Estate Management, Inc.

826 S.E.2d 285 (2019)

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

Wellspring is part of a planned unit development. P became interested in Wellspring because of its proximity to her job. Security was an important factor in her decision-making process. When she signed her lease, a Wellspring manager told her there were security officers on duty. An internal Wellspring employee manual stated, 'We generally do not provide security for our residents[,] and employees should never indicate that we do so.' This information was not given to residents. Wellspring had designed a courtesy officer program allowing residents affiliated with law enforcement to receive reduced rent in exchange for their service as courtesy officers for the apartment complex. Wellspring employed these courtesy officers as independent contractors and entered into agreements requiring the courtesy officers to (1) spend a minimum of two hours daily of their off-duty time walking the property, (2) answer calls regarding incidents on the property, and (3) submit daily reports to the property manager. Courtesy officers were asked not to carry a weapon unless required by their law enforcement employer. Courtesy officers were asked but were not required, to park their law enforcement vehicles on the Wellspring premises. The parameters of these agreements were kept internally and were not provided to residents. Wellspring published a 'security pager' number in a monthly tenant newsletter. The newsletter also prominently noted 'security is also [a] very top priority with us' and advised tenants to 'call the security pager or Richland County Sheriff Dept. if you see anything suspicious.' Ds did not alert P or other tenants that the provision of 'security' was limited to the confines of the courtesy officer program, as those particulars were known only to Ds. On September 18, 2008, P parked her car and began walking toward the ramp that led to her apartment. The pole light in the parking lot was not illuminated and the view of the stairs and ramp . . . was obscured by darkness and massive shrubbery that was overgrown. Two armed men appeared from behind the shrubbery and demanded money. The men forced her at gunpoint to drive them to several ATMs to withdraw money from her account. They promised P they would kill her and told her, 'You will never see home again.' One of the men put his hand down the back of P's pants and contemplated 'having some fun before [killing] her.' There were no courtesy officers at Wellspring on the night. The last time a courtesy officer had been employed was in July 2008. Although there were no courtesy officers Wellspring continued to publish the security pager number in its monthly tenant newsletter. P sued Ds for negligence, breach of implied warranties, and violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. P’s security expert attacked the overgrown shrubbery, poor lighting, the unique status of the complex as a development surrounded by a public park, and Wellspring’s lie that security was in place. The court granted Ds' motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed holding that Ds had no duty to protect P from third-party criminal activity. It found that the creation of the courtesy officer program did not impose a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing security at Wellspring. This appeal resulted.