Orlando Senior Partner Laurette Balinsky, Esq., obtained a final summary judgment in a negligent security case involving the shooting death of a 16 year old, in the matter styled Shonte Bunch, as PR of the Estate of Martorell Williams v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, SSA Delaware and Northlake Foods, d/b/a Waffle House in Brevard County, Florida. The PR alleged that Pilot/ SSA breached their non-delegable duty to decedent to provide a reasonably safe premise by allowing crowds to congregate on their premises, thereby creating a foreseeable zone of risk to invitees. The Complaint alleged that Defendants allowed hundreds of people to congregate on the premises and that multiple crimes purportedly occurred in the three years before the incident. The plaintiff was seeking $5M on the case.

Defendants moved for summary judgment shortly after the May 2021 amendment to Rule 1.510, Fla.R.Civ.P. Defendants’ Motion was based on two distinct grounds: (1) that Defendants owed no duty to the decedent; and (2) decedent’s claim was barred by Fla. Stat. §768.075(4) since he was involved in a felony at the time of the shooting.

Defendants’ primary argument as to lack of duty was predicated on the fact that the shooter fired the deadly shot from the premises of our client, and that there was no record evidence as to the exact location of the decedent to our property line when he was shot. Defendants argued that decedent was, at best, within an easement granted to the adjoining property owner, and not within a location controlled by Defendants. As such, it was Defendants’ position that there is no duty under Florida law to protect an invitee from a crime committed by a third party outside of its premises. To hold otherwise, would extend Florida law and turn premises liability on its head.

Plaintiff vigorously opposed Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment and filed an Affidavit by security expert, Michael Zoovas. Within their Reply brief, Defendants moved to strike the Affidavit, arguing that it was essentially a sham, because the expert ignored evidence and completely failed to acknowledge the location of the shooter. Defendants further argued that the expert’s opinion that the decedent was shot on Pilot’s premises should be stricken because the opinion was not supported by any evidence and fell outside the expert’s background, education, training, and expertise. Moreover, the location of the decedent was not germane to the duty argument, since it was clear that the tort was committed (i.e., the gun was fired) from a location outside of premises owned or controlled by Defendants. In other words, the expert’s Affidavit was simply a distraction.

The Court conducted two lengthy hearings. Plaintiff submitted a total of four briefs; one was submitted the day after the conclusion of the second hearing. After consideration of Plaintiff’s untimely Supplemental Memorandum of Law, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment. In its opinion, the Court stated that it was “loathe to find a ‘crowd’ as inherently dangerous a hazard as buried electric cables or to extend a duty to property owners for crimes that occur off their premises where that property owner has not caused the conditions for the injury.” The Court further found that the existence of an easement providing ingress and egress does not extend liability to Defendants, and that Defendants did not have a duty to decedent for criminal acts initiated on an adjoining property. This is a significant win for the defense bar, and protects property owners from an extension of liability for acts that occur outside of an owner’s premises, and from acts which are outside of their control.