## Facts

- Denise Wright leased an apartment at the Wellspring complex in Columbia, South Carolina, managed by PRG Real Estate Management, Inc. and owned by Franklin Pineridge Associates.
- Wellspring was accessible through public walking trails running through the surrounding community.
- Wright testified that security influenced her rental decision and that, when she signed her lease, a manager told her there were “security officers on duty.”
- The complex distributed tenant communications referencing a phone number for “paging security,” suggesting an organized security presence.
- The property’s actual security arrangement was a courtesy-officer program in which some law-enforcement tenants received rent reductions for occasional security-related services, rather than a full-time on-site security force.
- Wright alleged she was abducted from a common area and robbed at gunpoint by unknown assailants.
- Wright sued the management company, the owner, and the property manager for negligence, alleging (1) a voluntarily assumed duty to provide security that was performed without reasonable care and (2) negligent maintenance of lighting and shrubbery that contributed to the assault.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that they owed no duty to protect Wright from third-party criminal acts; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The state supreme court granted certiorari to review duty (voluntary undertaking), breach, and proximate cause.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ statements and conduct created a voluntarily undertaken duty to provide security services to tenants, and the scope of any such duty.
2. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed as to breach of any voluntarily assumed security duty (including related premises conditions such as lighting and shrubbery).
3. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether any breach proximately caused Wright’s injuries.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the affirmance of summary judgment and remanded for trial.
- The court held the record contained evidence from which a jury could find defendants voluntarily undertook to provide security services, triggering a duty of reasonable care.
- The court held factual disputes existed on whether defendants breached the assumed duty and on whether any breach proximately caused Wright’s abduction and robbery.

## Legal Principles

- Landlords generally owe no duty to protect tenants from criminal acts of third parties absent a recognized exception.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, one who voluntarily undertakes to render services necessary for another’s protection must exercise reasonable care and may be liable if:
  - lack of reasonable care increases the risk of harm, or
  - the harm occurs because the other person relied on the undertaking.
- Representations to tenants and operational practices may support a finding that a landlord or manager assumed a security-related duty; the existence, scope, breach, and causation questions commonly present jury issues when supported by record evidence.
- At summary judgment, evidence is viewed in the nonmoving party’s favor; if reasonable jurors could differ on duty, breach, or causation, judgment as a matter of law is improper.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence of security representations and related practices could establish a voluntarily assumed duty to provide security under § 323, and that disputed facts regarding breach and proximate cause required trial rather than summary judgment.


Wright v. PRG Real Estate Mgmt., Inc., 826 S.E.2d 285 (S.C. 2019)