BOSTON (Legal Newsline) - The landlord of a now-closed nightclub in Massachusetts won't be held liable for the execution-style murder of a musician who performed there in 2016.
The events of Feb. 17 that year were not foreseeable, the state Supreme Court ruled Aug. 16 in affirming summary judgment for defendant UTP Realty, which owned the space leased by City Limits Saloon in Randolph.
Gregory Wright said he had an extreme PTSD reaction that caused severe paranoia, which culminated in him shooting Drake Scott in the head following an open mic night at City Limits.
The murder occurred about seven feet outside the front door of City Limits. Wright said his paranoia led him to believe Scott was involved in the death of his brother and in 2019 was sentenced to life in prison with no parole.
Norvella Hill-Junious brought a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of her son's estate against UTP, which was formed in 2015 to own the property. She claimed UTP ignored a history of violent behavior there.
The trial judge found UTP's Uyen Phan showed she had no knowledge of prior criminal acts there when she purchased it in 2015. She had opened a nail salon on the first floor of the property in 2013, and City Limits operated on the basement floor, with its own building entrance.
A fight and assault occurred at City Limits in 2013, and the following year there were reports of multiple fights, a drug-related arrest, windows broken by an individual using a baseball bat and a shooting of three people.
In 2015, gun shots were reported on one instance, and in another a customer was hit on the head with a bottle.
The lawsuit alleged Phan should have been aware of all of these incidents when she purchased the property in 2015. The Supreme Court disagreed and found UTP could not have foreseen the murder.
"Of course, UTP's duty is not circumscribed by what it knew; the duty also encompasses what it should have known," the decision says.
"The plaintiff relies heavily on the evidence of prior acts of violence at the property to argue that the harm that occurred here was reasonably foreseeable. However, even if UTP should have known of the prior acts of violence identified by the plaintiff, that would not be conclusive on the question of duty.
"Here, the record cannot reasonably support a conclusion that security measures... such as additional exterior lighting and an additional security presence near the nightclub's exit, would have prevented the shooting that occurred."