Wright v. PRG Real Estate Management, Inc.

South Carolina Court of Appeals · 2015 · Torts

413 S.C. 276 (2015)

Updated July 19, 2026

TortsLandlord liabilityNegligencePremises liabilityUnfair Trade Practicesdutylandlord-tenantthird-party crime

Facts

Wright leased an apartment at Wellspring Apartment Complex, which was part of a larger planned unit development containing public walking trails. One night, two men abducted Wright at gunpoint from Wellspring's parking lot and forced her to withdraw money from ATMs before fleeing. Wright alleged the respondents were negligent for failing to provide adequate lighting, maintain shrubbery, and reasonably execute a courtesy officer program, and she also alleged a Wellspring employee made deceptive statements that the complex was safe and secure and patrolled by courtesy officers. At the time of the abduction, Wellspring did not have a courtesy officer in place.

Issue

Did the apartment owners and managers owe Wright a duty to protect her from third-party criminal activity under the circumstances of this case, including the presence of public trails, the common areas doctrine, or the respondents' voluntary security-related acts? Did the alleged statements about safety and courtesy officers constitute unfair or deceptive acts under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act?

Rule

In South Carolina, residential landlords generally do not owe tenants an affirmative duty to protect them from criminal acts of third parties merely because of the landlord-tenant relationship. The presence of adjoining or traversing public streets or trails does not remove a case from that rule absent evidence the landlord invited the public onto the premises. South Carolina does not recognize a landlord duty to keep common areas secure from third-party criminal activity, and when a landlord voluntarily undertakes some security-related measure, any duty is strictly limited to the scope of that undertaking rather than a general duty to provide security. Generalized statements that apartments are safe and secure and patrolled by courtesy officers, on the facts of this case, are not unfair or deceptive acts under section 39-5-20(a).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Maya Ortiz rents an apartment at Cedar Glen Apartments in Columbia, South Carolina. One evening, an unknown assailant robs her in the complex parking lot, and she sues the landlord for negligence based solely on the landlord-tenant relationship.

Is the landlord most likely subject to liability for failing to protect Maya from the assailant?

Explanation. The majority held that, in South Carolina, residential landlords generally do not owe tenants an affirmative duty to protect them from third-party criminal acts merely by reason of the landlord-tenant relationship. The other choices incorrectly import broader duties the court refused to recognize.