Landlord Not Liable for Murder at Nightclub, Mass. Supreme Court Says

A commercial landlord is not liable for a “targeted, execution-style shooting” that took place on her property as it was not reasonably foreseeable and no reasonable security measures could have prevented it, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled.

The state’s high court upheld a summary judgment in favor of the landlord, UTP Realty and owner Uyen Phan, in a wrongful death case brought by Norvella Hill-Junious, the mother of Drake Scott, Jr., who was killed in 2016 in a shooting at a Randolph nightclub named City Limits Saloon.

The high court affirmed that “the existence of a duty of care depends upon the foreseeability of a risk of harm that the defendant has an ability to prevent.”

The plaintiff contended that the granting of summary judgment to UTP was inappropriate because there was a dispute of material fact whether UTP knew or should have known about prior acts of violence at the nightclub, so as to create a duty to protect her son from the risk of violence on the property.

But the court ruled that the law does not “place the burden of all harm caused by random violent criminal conduct on the owner of the property where the harmful act occurred, without proof that the landowner knew or had reason to know of a threat to the safety of persons lawfully on the premises against which the landowner could have taken reasonable preventive steps.”

The court concluded that the plaintiff lacked evidence that the landlord knew or should have known about the shooting.

Phan, who operated a nail salon in the same building as the nightclub, purchased the building three months before the shooting.

Hill-Junious argued that as the owner, UTP knew or should have known about a history of violence and police activity at the nightclub and that UTP failed to take security steps that could have prevented it. The plaintiff contended that UTP was negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting and security for the property’s common areas and by failing to conduct a risk assessment of the property, which she argued would have uncovered the ways in which the City Limits nightclub “deviated from accepted security standards.”

Scott’s mother also maintained that it would be unreasonable for a landlord like UTP to purchase a property with a nightclub on it without first inquiring about past violent acts on the property.

Finally, the plaintiff contended that although the murder was premeditated, the question whether additional security measures would have prevented her son’s death was a question of fact for a jury.

In her defense, Phan denied having any knowledge of the violent incidents or criminal activity that had occurred on the property. She maintained that the murder was not reasonably foreseeable, and therefore, no duty of care existed between UTP and the victim. UTP also argued that, even if it had implemented security measures, no such reasonable measures would have prevented the murder.

The court agreed with Phan that UTP could not have foreseen or prevented the shooting and thus had no duty to protect the victim of the shooting against the “sudden, unanticipated act of violence.” The court said there was no evidence that UTP was affiliated in any way with, or knowledgeable about, the shooter or any dispute that he may have had with the victim. Rather, the record suggests that the shooting only occurred at the nightclub because the shooter happened upon the victim there that evening.

The court found that even if UTP should have known of the prior acts of violence on the nightclub premises, that would not be conclusive on the question of duty. A court must also consider whether the harm is one “that the defendant has an ability to prevent.” The court found that the “record cannot reasonably support a conclusion that security measures, including those suggested by the plaintiff’s expert, such as additional exterior lighting and an additional security presence near the nightclub’s exit, would have prevented the shooting that occurred.”

To the contrary, the court said the record indicated that the shooting took place despite the presence of security staff at the nightclub and that “no rational basis exists to conclude that lighting could have prevented the killing.”

The court noted that UTP’s alleged failures to inquire about the risk profile of the property when purchasing it and to implement suggested security measures did not suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact.

In a related development in 2022, Hill-Junious won a $810,013 judgment against the nightclub, which was required under its lease with UTP to carry liability insurance with a minimum limit of $1 million. Also, the shooter was convicted of murder in the first degree in connection with the incident.