Mellon Mortgage Co. v. Holder
Texas Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceJustice Baker
As a general rule, a landowner has no legal duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third party who is not under the landowner’s control or supervision. See Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749, 756 (Tex.1998); Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex.1996). To the extent that the law does impose a duty, the threshold issue is whether the risk of harm was foreseeable. See Timbenualk, 972 S.W.2d at 756; Walker, 924 S.W.2d at 377. I conclude as a matter of law that, under the record here, Mellon could not foresee the risk that a sexual assault would occur…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Greater Houston Transportation Co. v. PhillipsTexas Supreme Court · 1991
- El Chico Corp. v. PooleTexas Supreme Court · 1987
- Walker v. HarrisTexas Supreme Court · 1996
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.