Wright v. PRG Real Estate Management, Inc.

South Carolina Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsLandlord liabilityNegligencePremises liabilityUnfair Trade Practicesdutythird-party crimelandlord-tenant

Facts

Wright leased an apartment at Wellspring Apartment Complex, part of the Harbison Community Association, where public walking trails ran through the larger community and one trail went through or alongside the property. In 2008, two men abducted Wright at gunpoint from Wellspring's parking lot and forced her to withdraw money from ATMs before fleeing. She alleged the respondents negligently failed to protect tenants by providing inadequate lighting, failing to trim overgrown shrubbery, and unreasonably executing a courtesy officer program, which happened to be vacant when she was abducted. She also alleged a property manager made unfair or deceptive statements when she rented the apartment by describing Wellspring as safe and secure and saying courtesy officers patrolled the premises.

Issue

Did the respondents owe Wright a legal duty to protect her from third-party criminal activity under the circumstances of this apartment complex, including its common areas and voluntary security-related measures? Also, did the manager's statements that the complex was safe and secure and patrolled by courtesy officers constitute unfair or deceptive acts under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act?

Rule

In South Carolina, residential landlords do not owe tenants an affirmative duty to protect them from criminal activity of third parties merely because of the landlord-tenant relationship. A landlord's common-areas duty to keep premises safe does not extend to keeping common areas secure from third-party criminal activity, and a voluntary undertaking creates only a duty limited to the scope of the undertaking itself. 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.

Nina Flores leases an apartment at Rivergate Flats in Columbia, South Carolina. One evening, she is mugged in the complex parking lot by an unknown assailant and sues the landlord for negligence, arguing the landlord-tenant relationship itself required the landlord to protect tenants from criminal attacks.

Under the governing rule, is the landlord most likely subject to a duty to protect Nina from the assailant's crime?

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 activity merely by virtue of the landlord-tenant relationship. The rule rejects importing the broader duties applicable to store owners and innkeepers. Nothing in this hypothetical adds a recognized basis for a different result.