Landlords and Crime:
Navigating Liability of Third-Party Criminal Acts in Georgia
By: Tabitha Elligan – Georgia Licensed Managing Attorney with Brownlee Whitlow & Praet
On June 29, 2023, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of GA CVS Pharmacy v. Carmichael
(S22G0527) addressing the question of whether landlords can be held liable for third-party criminal activities in the state of Georgia. The decision emphasized that liability for negligent security measures hinges upon the totality of the circumstances, and provided insights into ways to address premises liability issues.
In the case, Mr. Carmichael sustained injuries as a result of being shot in the parking lot of a CVS Pharmacy.
Subsequently, Mr. Carmichael initiated a premises liability lawsuit against CVS, alleging that the company failed to provide adequate security and contending that the landlord had a duty to do so under O.C.G.A. ⸹ 51-3-1. Following the trial, the jury awarded Mr. Carmichael the sum of $41,750,000 in damages and found CVS to be 95% at fault for the incident. CVS
appealed the jury’s verdict, and the Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the decision of the lower court following
consideration of the arguments of counsel. In its ruling, the Court of Appeals emphasized that the jury had the authority to determine that the criminal activity in question was reasonably foreseeable by CVS.
The Supreme Court of Georgia conducted a thorough analysis of the case at hand and reached the conclusion that the determination of whether the landlord owed a duty hinged upon establishing the foreseeability of the incident.
Importantly, the Supreme Court emphasized that the question of foreseeability must be left to the discretion of a jury rather than a judge. The jury is tasked with examining the totality of the circumstances, taking into account factors such as prior criminal activities on the property, the timeframe of such occurrences, the landlord’s knowledge of these crimes, and whether such knowledge was sufficient to anticipate harm to the plaintiff. This underscores the position that cases of this nature
cannot be dismissed at the summary judgment phase of the case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that the mere occurrence of prior crimes is insufficient to establish foreseeability; instead, a comprehensive assessment of all relevant circumstances is necessary. Moreover, even after establishing the duty, it is pivotal to ascertain whether the landlord took adequate measures to mitigate the foreseeable risk, thereby determining whether the duty was breached. This multi-faceted approach underscores the complexities involved in assessing landlord liability in such cases.
Based on the current legal landscape, it is conceivable that landlords may be held accountable for third-party criminal activities. Each case would necessitate a comprehensive analysis of the specific circumstances involved. The foreseeability of harm to an individual would need to be determined, a task typically left to a jury. It is probable that trial courts will not readily dismiss cases at summary judgment solely on the basis of a landlord’s assertion that they do not bear any responsibility.
As a result, it is anticipated that such cases may become more prevalent, with the potential for their outcomes hinging on the favorability of a party in the eyes of the jury. Further developments in this area would likely require legislative intervention by the Georgia legislature.
The takeaway is that landlords should be monitoring and inspecting their property to make sure that safety measures
or best practices are being followed and that any criminal activity is met with an immediate and emergent response.
*The information provided in this article does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information in this article is for general informational purposes only. Information in this article may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. Viewers of this material should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No viewer of this material should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information in this presentation without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this article does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Brownlee Whitlow & Praet, PLLC or any contributing law firms. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this article are hereby expressly disclaimed.
