Akridge v. Fathom, Inc. - No. E2014-00711-COA-R9-CV, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 8 (Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2015)

Rule:

There is generally no duty to control the conduct of a third party so as to prevent the third party from causing harm to another unless: (1) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or (2) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection.

Facts:

Plaintiffs were attending a public musical event at Club Fathom when a shooting incident occurred outside the Club. It was alleged that the security personnel employed by the Club stopped the event and forced all patrons to exit the building. Plaintiffs were caught in the crossfire of the shootout. Plaintiffs then instituted the present complaint against defendants, owners of the Club. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that since the complaint only alleged liability based on a tortious event happening outside the building, they could not be held liable. The trial court denied the motion. Defendants sought an interlocutory appeal.

Issue:

Were the defendants liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiffs from an incident that occurred outside the defendants’ building, thereby justifying the denial of summary judgment in favor of the defendants?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the trial court erred in holding that the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs who were injured by the criminal acts of third parties where there was no relationship between the owners and the tortfeasors. According to the Court, the only duty the owners owed the plaintiffs was to protect them from harm while they were on the business premises, and it was undisputed that the plaintiffs were no longer on the business premises at the time of the tortious act. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s judgment.