What is Foreseeable?: Premises Liability and Third Party Criminal Acts
Following the conclusion of oral argument, the Maryland Supreme Court is reviewing a case that could significantly broaden the scope of premises liability under Maryland law. Premises liability is a specific theory of negligence under which an individual alleges that a landowner is responsible for damages an individual sustains on the landowner’s premises. The case before the Maryland Supreme Court centers around the Plaintiff, Catherine Torney. In 2021, Ms. Torney, a student of Towson University, was shot while attending a party on campus. The “pop-up party” was held in a central campus area known as Freedom Square. University police officers were present and reportedly observed underage drinking, loud music, and a crowd of over 400 people.
Under a theory of premises liability, Ms. Torney filed a lawsuit against Towson University seeking damages that she sustained as a result of the shooting. In summary, Ms. Torney alleges that the University had a responsibility to protect students, such as her, on its property from foreseeable violence. Ms. Torney argues that, given the circumstances, the shooting was foreseeable. However, lower courts dismissed her claim, ruling that Towson University did not owe her a legal “duty of care” sufficient to hold the University liable for the actions of a third-party shooter.
Now, the Maryland Supreme Court must decide whether to overturn the lower court’s dismissal. Central to the case is whether Towson University owed Torney a duty of care as a landowner. In addressing that duty, the Court must address two primary issues. First, the Court must determine Ms. Torney’s status as a visitor on campus. Second, the Court must address the foreseeability of the harm caused to Mr. Torney. In other words, the Court must consider whether the shooting was reasonably foreseeable given the circumstances.
In considering Ms. Torney’s status on campus, Maryland law generally requires property owners to take reasonable steps to protect lawful visitors. Contrarily, landowners owe a much lower level of protection to trespassers. The Court is examining whether a student attending an unsanctioned event, such as the party here, qualifies for stronger protections afforded to invitees or whether such a student should be afforded lesser protections for attending an event unapproved by the University.
With respect to the second issue of foreseeability, the Court must determine whether the circumstances surrounding the “pop-up party” made the shooting foreseeable. Ms. Torney’s legal team contends that the University should have anticipated the risk of violence at such a large, uncontrolled gathering. On the other hand, the University argues that there was no reasonable way to foresee a shooting without specific evidence of imminent danger (e.g. threats or observation of a weapon).
Historically, Maryland courts are reluctant to hold property owners liable for crimes committed by third parties unless there is a clear duty and foreseeable risk. The Court’s ruling in Ms. Torney’s case will clarify how broadly “foreseeability” is interpreted in situations involving crowd control and public safety. The decision could have wide-ranging implications across Maryland. Universities and schools could face expanded obligations for policing campus events. Generally, public property owners could see increased liability exposure as a result of parties or other “unruly” events taking place on their property. Ultimately, the Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling could expand the issue of foreseeability in Maryland premises liability law, potentially redefining when and how property owners must anticipate and guard against the criminal acts of third parties.
Written by Henry F. Murphy, Esq.
