Maier v. Serv-All Maint. - 124 Ohio App. 3d 215, 705 N.E.2d 1268 (1997)

Rule:

Even if a special relationship exists requiring a security company to provide protection for an individual, the security company is only liable if the criminal actions of the third party were foreseeable. The test for foreseeability is whether a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated that an injury was likely to result from the performance or nonperformance of an act. No one is bound to prevent consequences which are beyond the range of probability. Foreseeability of criminal acts depends on the knowledge of the defendant-business, which must be determined from the totality of the circumstances. Only when the totality of the circumstances are somewhat overwhelming is a defendant-business held liable for the criminal acts of a third party.

Facts:

Porter Properties E.P.I.’s office was located on the fourth floor of the Enterprise Place building in Beachwood, Ohio. Porter owned the Enterprise building, and lease office space to Progressive and other tenants. Porter hired Serv-All Maintenance to clean the building. One of Porter’s employees was Theresa Maier. Maier was murdered when a maintenance employee dragged her into the unlocked offices of Progressive Casualty, and strangled her. Her body was discovered by the security guards of Porter and Progressive. Appellant, Thomas R. Maier, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Theresa A. Maier, filed an action against appellees, Allied Security, Inc., Burns International Security Services, Inc. and Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, for the negligently-provided security services. The trial court granted appellees summary judgment. The appellant challenged the decision.

Issue:

Did appellants have a duty to protect Maier from the maintenance employee’s actions, thereby making the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees unwarranted?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the Court affirmed. The Court held that summary judgment was proper because no assault had ever taken place in the building nor was the building in a high crime area. A reasonable mind could not have concluded that the murder and robbery was reasonably foreseeable. The totality of the circumstances was not “somewhat overwhelming,” and the lessor’s security company had no duty to protect against the unforeseeable actions of a third party. Further, the Court averred that even if a special relationship existed between the decedent and the lessee's security company, the lessee's security company was not liable for unforeseeable criminal acts. Finally, murders in the lessee's California office were too remote in location and time to render the Ohio murder foreseeable. While a computer theft was foreseeable, a murder was not.