Announcer: SJC-12917, Sharon Heath Letson,
meet Alexander Styler.
-: And we'll hear from Mr. Leontire please.
You have to unmute yourself
after I asked you to unmute yourself.
-: Okay, how's that?
Gaziano: Great, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Good morning, your honor.
Good morning Justices.
My name is George Leontire
and I represent Sharon Heath,
as personal representative of the estate of Kevin Heath,
and Mr. Heath is, I know the court is aware,
Kevin Heath was murdered
at the party that took place at the Styler residence.
I know this is a complicated issue
and I know it has lots of ramifications.
I would like to explain that
the basis of the trial court's decision
was that in a
residential landlord in tenant relationship,
unlawful acts of third persons,
are not deemed to be
a duty or foreseeable.
And that is a true statement
of residential landlord and tenant law.
However, that is not what we have here.
-: Well,
that's the kind of an oversimplification
of what the trial, the motion judge did, didn't he?
He's applying appeals court precedent Bella's are
versus for,
that where they actually don't even need to decide
whether there's a tenancy
or at least a formal tenancy,
but just that the harm is not foreseeable.
And,
I think it,
I have real trouble understanding
how the harm to your client is foreseeable
from this Airbnb rental agreement.
You know, I can understand if you rented your apartment
in a very dangerous area,
with bad locks on it,
and then somebody gets attacked inside the apartment.
That might be one thing,
but I don't understand how
renting your place out for a college reunion expose
it's foreseeable that someone's gonna get murdered there.
Tell me how there's a duty owed
to your client here.
-: Sure.
First of all, this wasn't a college reunion.
None of the people who rented the place went to college.
Secondly,
Mr. Styler put a limit
and based on the record at different points
he said it was 15 people, 20 people.
But the fact of the matter is, the day that took place
the event took place, he was there,
before it started.
He saw that there were multiple bars,
DJs, lots of people.
And he knew that this was gonna be a major event.
Not only was it as was referred to in the earliest session-
-: But again, how was,
even a major even, again,
it's a murder.
I understand if you're suing
the person who killed your client,
or you're even maybe suing Mr. Victor,
'cause he misled Mr. Styler.
But how do you get a duty of care to,
from Mr. Styler to your client?
-: Well, your honor there are areas
where we do recognize that duty of care.
And I don't think this is much different.
For example, in the hotel guests situation,
in the college situation,
where there's an assumption of the duty,
and him is this Styler under the terms of the agreement,
the Airbnb or related type agreement,
acknowledged that he was assuming
the obligation per security.
-: Well, he was renting out a house that had safe security
in case burglars, you know,
you rent out a place,
you wanna make sure that someone can't walk in,
but I don't understand again,
we have to look at the
foreseeability of the harm here,
and also, you know,
you're merging a bunch of different concepts,
your client and Mr. Styler are,
you know, really,
I just don't see the connection here that
Mr. Style could foresee harm to your client.
For see your client being shocked by somebody,
by renting out his place.
-: In today's world and customer usage,
all across this country in Airbnbs,
where these kinds of partys are taking place
people being murdered.
It's not foreseeable that in a situation where
it's not regulated,
and you have several hundred people present
in a residential neighborhood,
with no controls on health and safety
or would we spend liquor being,
fly that a situation
and an occurrence like this in fact is possible.
I would beg to differ that,
that this is not a foreseeable event.
Not only is it that- -: Counsel,
there's a difference between possibility and foreseeability,
so it's possible.
But surely we're not at the place yet
where just having a large party,
for ten's murder.
-: I think that it's foreseeable that it's possible, judge,
honestly.
-: Foreseeable that it's possible.
-: No, I can understand that if we,
if he harmed were,
if the person died by say drowning or somebody was
killed as a result of the drunken behavior at the party,
that we might have something that it would be foreseeable,
but how could you foresee that someone's gonna get shot,
at this party?
That's that's the question I had.
How could you foresee that?
-: Well, you foresee it number one,
by not allowing 180 people more at your residence.
-: Well, how do you foresee murder?
How do you see murder, forcing murder
in that area by shooting?
I could see other kinds of injury.
I just can't see that.
-: Well, judge, I think that
in lots of communities in this country, people do see it,
and they're concerned about it-
-: Well not in Linfield.
-: Well, a lot of those people who went to that party,
most of them were not from Linfield.
And so I think that that,
when someone goes to a party of that magnitude,
advertised on the internet, all a welcome,
and the owner of the property fails to,
when he realizes what's going on,
fails to take any action whatsoever and walks away.
-: What did he realize was going on?
What does the fact establishing of you?
-: Is the use was supposed to be
a small number of people for a college reunion.
He shows up in the morning,
that the event is supposed to take place,
sees lots of people there-
-: How many people did he see?
-: I'd have to go back into the record Judge.
I don't remember the exact number, but it was-
-: How did he see see people that doesn't see,
hundreds of people, right?
-: No, he did not see hundreds of people at that point.
But he knew-
-: So he never,
when he left, mostly seen is what, a dozen people?
-: That was more than a dozen
because they had bars set up,
they had music, DJs.
-: So counsel, is it fair to say you don't really know?
-: I don't remember off the record
exactly how many there were your honor.
-: Can I take the Airbnb part of this case out of it?
So, you know, that's a relatively new phenomenon
that we just discussed the last case.
But if you had, you know,
throughout our jurisprudence,
if you had parents whose kids had large parties
and there was unfortunately a murder
or serious physical violence,
or any other landowner who had a party
and there was physical violence to another,
don't we have lots of cases that deal with that?
And whether or not there's a duty of care
in those instances?
Completely taking Airbnb out of it.
-: No, I don't think you can take,
I agree in that situation,
I'm not arguing in that situation.
I'm arguing in a very defined situation where,
impelled over the situation.
-: Right, so suppose that I go away for the weekend,
and my 20 year old kids are home
and they have a huge party
and I know they're gonna have huge party.
They have a good time at the party
and there's violence at the party,
isn't that the same situation?
Leontire: No. -: Why not?
-: Because it's not.
There is in one you have,
clearly a family, parents,
kids living in a home.
Another, you have people showing up for a couple of days
and you have an owner who's renting out
for commercial purposes
and does not even live by
the agreement of what was supposed to take place
at that commercial activity.
And I think you can distinguish by the way,
this is where I think we've gone a ride here.
This was not a simple residential party.
This was a commercial activity,
that Styler was allowing to take place,
on his property.
And there is a distinction between,
in lots of commercial situations,
we require health and safety.
We require police to attend.
So this is not some social party,
social host party.
This was an intentional commercial rental,
that Styler failed to
minimally make sure that the people who were using it,
were going to use it in a safe manner.
-: But where does that jive with the,
with the pine manner type analysis
in the special duties of care that you argued?
I would imagine that if I go away for a weekend
and my irresponsible 20 year olds have a party
some special duty of care, as opposed to
if I rent my house to a family
and they have a party that goes awry.
So where does that special duty of care
fit into this analysis?
-: Well, in Pine Manor,
you know, the court discussed that the college's duty exists
in the social values and customs of society.
And also that the college voluntarily
assumed a duty to protect residents.
I think that Styler,
who was renting out for commercial purposes
and was the only one,
who could control what was taking place at his property,
hold that same duty.
-: I think Justice Lowry has a question but he was muted.
-: Thank you Justice Gaziano.
Are you trying to prove too much
just by the nature of the commercial use?
Wouldn't a better argument we ask Mr. Sullivan about it
be that, this is a negligent entrustment situation when
the defendant goes back to the property and actually
sees what's going on.
And at that very moment, nonetheless,
he entrusts the property
to what is impending?
-: Yeah, I agree with that 100% judge.
And I think we made that argument where we
talk about negligence per say.
And,
I understand the argument and I agree
that, that's a good argument.
I just, I'm appalled at what Mr. Styler did here.
-: Yeah, but I think the reason I asked is because
I think that just flicking, just stifle,
we're trying to get at some facts
that support that because
if that's a more narrow theory of liability,
then, you know, what are the facts here as to what he saw?
What you've mentioned that there were
a few bars set up
and that there were some unknown amount of people.
-: Yes judge.
And they were setting up
the music system, which was a very large music system.
It was mines,
from the facts.
It was my understanding that it was clear to Mr. Styler.
And I believe it's in the record that,
this was going to be a large event.
A large party.
-: This Mr. Leontire was,
I don't, what is your client?
Was he an invitee to this?
From what I understand the invitation to this was,
you know, you gotta be invited or you've gotta be a girl.
That was the invite to the party.
I take it your client's not a girl.
So was he an invitee to this?
-: Yes.
The fact is that-
-: And that's alleged in the,
that's alleged in the complaint that he was invited
by Mr. Victor to this party?
-: He wasn't invited by Mr. Victor
nor did they operate that way,
nor did they operate by just letting women.
What they did was,
they put it out on the internet
and lots of people,
it would be one person that was invited,
inviting other people, inviting other people.
One of the things we talk about in alleging the complaint
is that they didn't check anybody
who was coming in the door,
whether they in fact were invited or not.
-: And did you sue Mr. Victor?
Leontire: We did.
-: You did, is that right?
Leontire: Yes. -: Okay.
-: What's the status of that,
the case against Mr. Victor?
-: They filed a motion,
motion for summary judgment in that case.
They alleging that Mr. Victor,
was doing
other individuals a favor by using his credit card
to pay the $7500 I believe the amount was.
And,
in deposition testimony of the other individuals,
they claimed that Mr. Victor,
Mr. Victor is the only one that has any yes.
He has insurance policy,
a small one but there's an insurance policy.
And the other individuals that rented the place
have no assets whatsoever.
We've done depositions, et cetera.
-: Any further questions counsel?
Thank you.
We'll turn it to Mr. Sullivan please.
Leontire: Thank you.
Good morning justices, Chris Sullivan.
May I please the court on behalf of Mr. Alex Styler.
The general rule in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
has been that,
a landowner does not owe a duty to guests for the
random violent acts of a third party.
And that has been the policy of this court.
And it's been part of our jurisprudence
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a number of years.
And there's good reasons for that.
And the reasons are that one fundamental fairness,
a landowner is, if a landowner is gonna be held accountable,
should be aware of what the landowner
will be held accountable for.
Secondly, it's also part of our negligence statutory scheme
and our case law.
Where in order for someone to be held responsible
to be found negligent,
there must be a duty and there must be causation.
The third part is that it creates an incentive
for landowners to keep their property safe,
to try to maintain it in a good manner, in a safe manner.
Because the alternative is that
if there's not that incentive,
if it's almost a strict liability analysis where
if an accident happens,
or there's violence on an individual's property
you're automatically or strictly liable,
there's really no incentive for a property owner to
want it, their property in a good condition.
-: Mr. Sullivan, can I focus you a little?
And I get the basic parts of this.
I'm just trying to test the limits of it.
So you're,
Mr. Styler is running a business out of his house,
essentially, sort of a party,
a little bit of a party business.
He's informed that there's going to,
that he sees the party isn't a little college reunion
but it looks like it's gonna be a real big party.
I mean, if you're a bar owner
and you're running a nightclub,
you've got to have bouncers and security
and stuff like that.
I'm just trying to get a sense of,
if you're running a giant party for commercial purposes,
you tend to have to have some kind of security present.
I guess that's where I'm thinking.
Is this starting to border on, you know,
if you're running a commercial party, a large one,
forget about where it is,
mayhem is a possibility.
Shooting may not be but,
this is a big internet party for commercial purposes.
And if your client has some sense that it's gonna be
a big party at this place, right?
How do you deal with that?
This isn't,
I rented my house to somebody and
some stranger got shot there.
It's, I rented my house,
'cause I knew my house was a big party place,
and I turn it into a commercial operation,
I don't mean to oversimplify it.
But that's at the outer edge of this,
that's what we've got here, right?
-: Well, the facts are that at 2:00 pm on the day
of the shooting,
and keep in mind the shooting wasn't until 3:00 am,
on the following day,
at 2:00 pm, Mr. Styler comes to the property
and he does not see anything that's gonna alert him
to any type of potential violence or danger.
And what does he see?
He's walking around the house.
He's showing the different appliances.
He's showing the guests are Mr. Victor how to use the pool.
There's nothing and I disagree with-
-: But tell me what's,
I thought there were a bunch of sort of young women
in swimsuits.
There's also bars being set up?
What does he see at 2:00 pm?
From what we can tell that's been pled in the complaint.
He sees that
there is more than 15 people that are present
and that there was preparations for a party,
but nothing more.
Nothing has been alleged.
-: Like bar, you know, bars set up,
multiple bars set up,
how many DJs does he see?
I'm just trying to get a sense of what he sees at 2:00 pm.
And in the complaint, there's no specific allegation
of how many disc jockeys are there
or any of the other specifics.
Other than that, there was a preparation for a party.
So there's no specifics as to how many bars,
how many disc jockeys,
but the real issue in this case,
in determining whether or not Mr. Styler
was really running a commercial business is
this is really something that was incidental.
I mean, that's a single family residence.
He is earning some supplemental income
by renting it out.
And the question really is, is whether or not
in this instance, does he have any indication that
if there's gonna be any type of violence
or any type of a crime from what he sees,
and at 2:00 pm, he sees nothing that's gonna to
give a reasonable landowner
notice that there's gonna be any type of a crime
or any type of violence.
-: So at 2:00 pm he doesn't have a sense that
his house is gonna be turned into basically a nightclub
with a hundred people running around?
Is that, when we look at that complaint and again,
we've got to assume all the facts are true in it.
There's no indication that basically,
his home is being turned into a giant party.
-: I would think not at 2:00 pm and keep in mind that
Mr. Victor said that he was gonna throw a party,
he's gonna throw a college reunion party.
So that really wasn't something that would alert
Mr. Styler to
something that was completely different
from what the understanding was when he rented the property.
His understanding was
there was gonna be a college reunion party.
And the fact that it's a large party,
doesn't really rise to the level of alerting someone to
the use of firearms, to the use of violence,
to the fact that a murder is gonna take place.
There's not enough in that brief visit
when he's basically walking through the house
and showing how the appliances work and how the pool works
that would in any way rise to the level,
for instance, in-
-: Mr. Styler, what's the rule of law though?
So as Justice Link asked,
Mr. Leontire, if someone had drowned in the pool,
duty of care?
-: I would think if somebody drowned in the pool,
that yes, you could see that there was a duty of care-
-: So, and then we have
we have some women there in bathing suits,
we have food put out, we have DJs and lots of liquor.
If there was a sexual assault,
is that foreseeable duty of care?
-: I would say no for a sexual assault.
No, because there would have to be some indications
that Mr. Styler previously when he rented the property out
that there was some type of violence that took place,
and keep in mind, and all the other-
-: A bar fight by two liquored up young people?
Would that be recoverable to your care there?
-: Well, I think that it's potentially recoverable,
but I think on these facts,
there's not any evidence that-
-: So, what's,
if we have to write this case,
what's the legal reason we use
to distinguish between the person who drowns
in the pool or a bar fight
versus this incidence of third party violence?
-: Well, is there a special relationship that
has been created between Mr. Heath,
who we no idea what his relationship is with Mr. Victor,
what his relationship is with Mr. Styler,
nothing's pled in the complaint.
We don't know anything about the shooter.
Nothing was alleged in the complaint,
his relationship with Mr. Styler,
his relationship with Mr. Victor,
we have none of that information.
And that's part of the problem is that
unlike say in the case of Bella's air versus Fewer,
which is very similar facts here,
there was 50 people present.
And in that case the plaintiff actually had to pay
to come into the party.
Liquor was being served
and an unknown third party pulled out a gun
and shot the plaintiff,
for apparently no reason, very similar set of facts.
And this court found that there was not enough evidence
to put the landowner on notice of his duty
of a potential violence from a third party to the guests.
And that case, I think is really controlling here,
because in that case,
even though there was some prior history
of criminal activity, low level,
even that was not enough to create
and bring to the level of a duty that was being owed.
Here there's even less.
We have Mr. Styler to some extent being duped
by Mr. Victor, who said I'm having a college reunion party.
And so he rented the property based upon that representation
he showed up at two o'clock and didn't see any evidence
of violence or anyone fighting, any disturbances.
The police were called at approximately 7:00 pm.
And when they came to the property,
they asked people to move some cars around,
but that was it.
And those are trained professionals
who are there to detect crime, detect potential violence.
They found nothing in this at 7:00 pm and they walked away.
The people who responded at the house were compliant.
They were cooperative.
There was no issues.
There was nothing the police had to do.
They left at 7:00 pm and now at 3:00 am,
there is an unexplained shooting
where Mr. Heath, for whatever reason,
is shot by some unknown criminal assailant,
and absent a special relationship,
that general rule of a landowner,
not knowing a duty to guess on the property
without some evidence of either a special relationship
or the other exception is,
did the land owner know or should the land owner have known.
And in this case I think we can all agree
that there's nothing even alleged
in the complaint, that Mr. Styler knew
of the propensity for violence.
He had rented this property out numerous times beforehand
without incident, no calls to the police,
no violence, no shootings, no guns, nothing at all.
-: Mr. Sullivan, is there any indicate
any allegation that Mr. Styler
knew this was being publicly advertised
on the internet as a party?
-: Absolutely none.
There's nothing alleged in the complaint
and there's no evidence at all.
Mr. Styler was with his family so many miles away
from the house when
either when the police were called
because he had no knowledge it,
they simply reported to the property.
They didn't contact him.
And then he was miles away from the property at 3:00 am
when the shooting took place.
And no special relationship cases that
the court touched upon
and asking questions of opposing counsel are important.
I mean, Mullins versus Pine Manor
talked about the relationship
between a college student in a university,
very different relationship.
There's an expectation that when
a family and a student is going college
and paying for college,
that they're going be educated, they're going to be housed
and that they're gonna be cared for.
That's not the relationship here at all.
This is a landlord tenant relationship.
Also in Fund versus Lenox hotel.
In that case, there been a history of criminal activity.
The individual, a plaintiff who was staying there,
her room was right next to a fire escape that had been used
for crimes beforehand and the hotel knew about that.
And they did not take sufficient steps
to protect their guest.
Completely different set of facts.
-: And Mr. Sullivan if I could ask you because,
would you agree, I'm just trying to figure out
where the line is and how attenuated this duty
can still be with liability.
Let's say that your client shows up at two o'clock
and there's three DJs set up, there's three's bars set up,
and there's certainly more people than you would expect,
at a small college reunion.
And one of the individuals at the party
gets drunk, leaves the party,
and,
kill somebody out on the road, drunk driving.
Is there a dram shop action available against your client?
-: If my client served alcohol to the individual-
-: No, just the facts I gave.
He sees what's happening at two o'clock.
Sees the emerging party
and then take the facts later on some hours later,
somebody leaves his house even though
he's not there, he's rented it out
and killed somebody out on the road.
-: I would say no,
because he was not in control of the premises
at the time liquor was served at this individual.
And that's a critical fact because it's stipulated.
And it's part of the complaint alleged in this case.
And this is something that the trial court justice,
focused on, in his opinion,
was that it's uncontested that Mr. Victor
had exclusive control over the property, when it was rented.
And that's a critical fact
because if Mr. Styler had been there
and had been in control of the party,
had seen things starting to develop for whatever reason,
then maybe there could be an obligation that he had to duty.
But I would also argue too
that even if Mr. Styler was there
and he was upstairs in his bedroom
and reading a book quietly,
there would have to be more evidence
other than people having a good time,
people listening to music,
people drinking alcohol to put him on notice
that there was gonna be a potential act of violence,
that somebody was gonna pull a gun and murder somebody
literally outside a nearest pool.
If he was even there at that time
there would still have to be some type of indication
that there was a potential threat of violence or danger.
If there had been a fight between some of the guests,
if there had been destruction of property,
if people were breaking things,
if there was some type of objective fact
that Mr Styler was aware of and he was present,
then he would have an obligation to do something.
But even under these facts from what we can see,
that's been alleged in the complaint which is not much,
there is written really no evidence that would put
even Mr. Victor on notice
of the fact that there was gonna be an act of violence
or that there was gonna be a murder taking place.
And that's part of the problem with this case
and what the trial court looked at
when the motion to dismiss was allowed,
is there's no evidence- -: Thank you Mr. Sullivan.
Thank you, you've answered my question I think.
-: Do you have any other questions of Mr. Sullivan?
Alright, thank you, counsel.