Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Mellon Mortgage Co. v. Holder

Texas Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1999No. 97-1187Published

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

  1. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. Greater Houston Transportation Co. v. PhillipsTexas Supreme Court · 1991
  4. El Chico Corp. v. PooleTexas Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Walker v. HarrisTexas Supreme Court · 1996

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API