ATLANTA (Legal Newsline) - A Georgia halfway house that took in homeless people and convicted felons may be liable for the false imprisonment and rape of a resident who was assaulted by a man who was on parole for manslaughter, an appeals court ruled.
Reversing a trial court’s dismissal of claims for a second time, the Georgia Court of Appeals said the plaintiff identified as R.F. can sue Rainbow Community Center for the assault she suffered in 2016. Then 19 and diagnosed with physical and cognitive disabilities, R.F. moved into Rainbow after leaving her mother’s house amid allegations of neglect.
About two weeks after moving in, she was raped by Roy Elling Hunter Jr., who had been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and paroled the year before. Rainbow didn’t know the nature of any residents’ crimes, relying on Georgia’s process for qualifying residents for halfway houses.
Hunter convinced R.F. to get in his truck to go and get a coke but refused to let her leave the vehicle and raped her outside Rainbow. He was convicted of the crime and R.F.’s guardian, Terri Fields, sued Rainbow for premises liability and other claims. A trial court dismissed her case, ruling it wasn’t foreseeable Hunter would assault her and R.F. couldn’t prove Rainbow’s negligence caused her injuries.
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal last year, saying the trial judge failed to consider the entire record. After the judge dismissed the case again, R.F. appealed for a second time and the Court of Appeals reversed a second time in an Oct. 23 ruling.
At the time of the attack, Rainbow required residents to sign documents prohibiting physical contact but the center had no security employees. There had only been one prior crime at the center, when a resident assaulted the center’s director (she was the victim but got arrested and later released).
The trial court focused on foreseeability when it dismissed the lawsuit, but the appeals court said there were many ways to prove Rainbow knew or should have known its residents with criminal records presented a risk to others.
“Fields pointed to evidence that at the time of the crimes against R. F., many residents of Rainbow were recently released convicted felons; that Rainbow did not exclude parolees with violent criminal histories; that Rainbow provided housing to other homeless people, including families with children and disabled people; yet Rainbow had no security at the premises,” the court ruled. “Had Rainbow had a security officer on the premises at the time of the crimes against R. F., the officer’s presence would have deterred activity that violated the shelter’s rules because consequence of violating them would be eviction.”