HOUSTON - A homeowners association owed no duty to a man who was assaulted after taking pictures of his neighbor’s deed restrictions, according to the 14th Court of Appeals.
Noris Rogers filed suit against the Kingsbridge Community Association alleging negligence.
In his suit, Rogers claims his neighbor assaulted him for taking pictures of the neighbor’s violations of deed restrictions.
Court records show that the association filed special exceptions and then a Rule 91a dismissal, which the trial court granted.
On May 19, the 14th Court affirmed the ruling, finding the association did not owe Rogers a duty.
A Rule 91a dismissal is proper if a cause of action has no basis in law or fact, and Texas law generally does not impose a legal duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third party, the opinion states.
An exception exists in a premises defect claim when the defendant controls the premises and has reason to know of an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm to an invitee.
“But Plaintiff never alleged that the Association controlled the sidewalk where the assault allegedly occurred, even after the Association filed special exceptions,” the opinion states. “It is not enough that the assault happened ‘in the public roadway’ in front of his neighbor’s home, ‘which is also located inside the Association’s borders and jurisdiction,’ as Plaintiff argues.”
Justices concluded that they would not impose a duty on the association merely because it had the right to enforce deed restrictions.
“Plaintiff has not alleged any facts or cited any law suggesting that a home owner’s association’s right to enforce deed restrictions somehow imposes a duty on it to prevent crime,” the opinion states. Because Plaintiff brought only a negligence claim against the Association, and the Association doesn’t owe a duty as a matter of law, we affirm the 91a dismissal.”
Appeals case No. 14-25-00125-CV
